I think the following quotes from a number of church historians may be of interest to all who seek to know the truth.

“Sunday (dies solis. . . .’day of the sun,’ because dedicated to the sun), the
first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of
worship. The ‘sun’ of Latin adoration they interpreted as the ‘Sun of
Righteousness.’ . . . . No regulations for its observance are laid down in the
New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined.” The Schaff-
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, volume 4, article, ‘Sunday,’ third edition, 1891), p. 2259.

its numbered week days, but by the close of the third century A. D. this
began to give way to the planetary week; and in the fourth and fifth
centuries the pagan designations became generally accepted in the western
half of Christendom. The use of the planetary names by Christians attests
the growing influence of astrological speculations introduced by converts
from paganism. . . . During these same centuries the spread of Oriental
solar worship, especially that of Mithra, in the Roman world, had already
led to the substitution by pagans of dies solis for dies Saturni, as the first
day of the planetary week. . . . Thus gradually a pagan institution was
ingrafted on Christianity.” Hutton Webster, Ph. D., Rest Days (New York:
Macmillan & Co., 1916), pp. 220, 221.

“The Gentiles were an idolatrous people who worshiped the sun, and
Sunday was their most sacred day. Now, in order to reach the people in this
new field, it seems but natural, as well as necessary, to make Sunday the
rest day of the Church. At this time it was necessary for the Church to
either adopt the Gentiles’ day or else have the Gentiles change their day.
To change the Gentiles’ day would have been an offense and stumbling
block to them. The Church could naturally reach them better by keeping
their day.” Dr. William Frederick, Sunday and the Christian Sabbath, pp.
169, 170.

“The Church made a sacred day of Sunday. . . . largely because it was the
weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over
the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to given them a
Christian significance.” Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity
(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, copyright in 1928), p. 145.

Regards
Brakelite

2Witnesses

Apr 27th 2008, 04:04 AM

I think the following quotes from a number of church historians may be of interest to all who seek to know the truth.

“Sunday (dies solis. . . .’day of the sun,’ because dedicated to the sun), the
first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of
worship. The ‘sun’ of Latin adoration they interpreted as the ‘Sun of
Righteousness.’ . . . . No regulations for its observance are laid down in the
New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined.” The Schaff-
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, volume 4, article, ‘Sunday,’ third edition, 1891), p. 2259.

its numbered week days, but by the close of the third century A. D. this
began to give way to the planetary week; and in the fourth and fifth
centuries the pagan designations became generally accepted in the western
half of Christendom. The use of the planetary names by Christians attests
the growing influence of astrological speculations introduced by converts
from paganism. . . . During these same centuries the spread of Oriental
solar worship, especially that of Mithra, in the Roman world, had already
led to the substitution by pagans of dies solis for dies Saturni, as the first
day of the planetary week. . . . Thus gradually a pagan institution was
ingrafted on Christianity.” Hutton Webster, Ph. D., Rest Days (New York:
Macmillan & Co., 1916), pp. 220, 221.

“The Gentiles were an idolatrous people who worshiped the sun, and
Sunday was their most sacred day. Now, in order to reach the people in this
new field, it seems but natural, as well as necessary, to make Sunday the
rest day of the Church. At this time it was necessary for the Church to
either adopt the Gentiles’ day or else have the Gentiles change their day.
To change the Gentiles’ day would have been an offense and stumbling
block to them. The Church could naturally reach them better by keeping
their day.” Dr. William Frederick, Sunday and the Christian Sabbath, pp.
169, 170.

“The Church made a sacred day of Sunday. . . . largely because it was the
weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over
the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to given them a
Christian significance.” Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity
(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, copyright in 1928), p. 145.

Regards
Brakelite

Brak,

I do not deny pagan influences came into part of the Church, that part which came to be called 'Catholic'.

They had a mission. They wanted to change the world. But they did not rely on God's wisdom, but man's. They thought they need to help the Holy Spirit by making Christianity more attractive to pagans. SO they reworked some pagan ideas with a Christian taint.

BUt 'sun day' had its bases in Scripture. It is from the prophet, 'The Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings.'

Christ rose on Sunday. Therefore we worship on that day. I see no problem with this!

2Witnesses

Naphal

Apr 27th 2008, 04:31 AM

Let us also not forget the first Sunday!

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It wasn't the day the Sun was created but there was LIGHT!

godsgirl

Apr 27th 2008, 10:50 AM

The teaching of the Bible is plain. The Law of Moses, which included the sabbath commandment, was to the nation of Israel only. It lasted as a binding law until Christ died on the cross. The Law of Christ, which began at Pentecost, is God’s law for all mankind today. The Law of Christ teaches that we are to meet on Sunday, the first day of the week. This is the day upon which our Lord arose from the dead (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2-6; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). The day upon which the church began, Pentecost day, also was on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:9-16). Therefore, we can see why the Lord chose the first day of the week as the day of worship for Christians.

brakelite

Apr 27th 2008, 09:51 PM

The teaching of the Bible is plain. The Law of Moses, which included the sabbath commandment, was to the nation of Israel only. It lasted as a binding law until Christ died on the cross. The Law of Christ, which began at Pentecost, is God’s law for all mankind today. The Law of Christ teaches that we are to meet on Sunday, the first day of the week. This is the day upon which our Lord arose from the dead (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2-6; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). The day upon which the church began, Pentecost day, also was on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:9-16). Therefore, we can see why the Lord chose the first day of the week as the day of worship for Christians.

Then please explain how you obviously so clearly understand this theory, but the apostolic church didn't?

Brother Mark

Apr 27th 2008, 11:53 PM

Then please explain how you obviously so clearly understand this theory, but the apostolic church didn't?

I thought they met on every day of the week, including Sunday. All days are fine for worship. Paul pretty much summed up my feeling on days in Romans.

Rom 14:5-8
5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
NASB

If someone wishes to observe Sunday as unto the Lord, by all means observe Sunday unto the Lord. That was the teaching of the apostles. ;)

losthorizon

Apr 28th 2008, 03:10 AM

I think the following quotes from a number of church historians may be of interest to all who seek to know the truth.

“The Church made a sacred day of Sunday. . . . largely because it was the
weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over
the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to given them a
Christian significance.” Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity
(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, copyright in 1928), p. 145.

Regards
Brakelite
Our Sabbatarian friend must resort to quoting losers like Arthur Weigall because he cannot find legitimate historians that push his nonsense. The Watchtower also quotes from Mr. Weigall to promote their anti-Trinitarian nonsense. Weigall thinks everything “Judeo-Christian” is of a pagan origin including the Jewish Sabbath. Whoops brakelite it looks like you either didn't do your homework or your SDA website forgot to quote all of Weigall's quote. Is he correct - was the Sabbath pagan or was it from God? Are you a "moon worshipper"?
"I have, already mentioned that Sunday, too, was a pagan holy-day; and in this chapter I propose to discuss the origin of this custom of keeping one day in the week as a Sabbath, or "day of rest,' and' to show that the practice was forcefully opposed by Jesus Christ. The origin of the seven-day week which was used by the Jews and certain other peoples, but not till, later by the Greeks or Romans, is to be sought in some primitive worship of the moon (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall)

I will leave you with a quote from the same book referenced above regarding the “Trinity”. I wonder if our friend also agrees with Weigall’s notion that the triune God is a pagan invention.
"Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity."

brakelite

Apr 28th 2008, 07:00 AM

Our Sabbatarian friend must resort to quoting losers like Arthur Weigall because he cannot find legitimate historians that push his nonsense. The Watchtower also quotes from Mr. Weigall to promote their anti-Trinitarian nonsense. Weigall thinks everything “Judeo-Christian” is of a pagan origin including the Jewish Sabbath. Whoops brakelite it looks like you either didn't do your homework or your SDA website forgot to quote all of Weigall's quote. Is he correct - was the Sabbath pagan or was it from God? Are you a "moon worshipper"?
"I have, already mentioned that Sunday, too, was a pagan holy-day; and in this chapter I propose to discuss the origin of this custom of keeping one day in the week as a Sabbath, or "day of rest,' and' to show that the practice was forcefully opposed by Jesus Christ. The origin of the seven-day week which was used by the Jews and certain other peoples, but not till, later by the Greeks or Romans, is to be sought in some primitive worship of the moon (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall)

I will leave you with a quote from the same book referenced above regarding the “Trinity”. I wonder if our friend also agrees with Weigall’s notion that the triune God is a pagan invention.
"Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity."

Even Christian denominations with which we may disagree on the most part hold to the teachings in other areas in which we would agree with them that is truth. Acceptance of the trinity by the RCC is an obvious example. We may not agree with them on many issues, but on the trinity, they are spot on.

I'll be honest. I had no idea who Weigall was. I certainly do not agree with his views on the Sabbath,(if indeed your quote is contextually correct) nor do I agree with him re the trinity. But the quote I used for this discussion I believe to be absolutely accurate.
And he is not the only source for that information regarding pagan practices within Christianity. Nor is the fact that paganism is rife throughout
Christianity an uncommon belief. Christmas, the Christmas tree, Easter, the Easter egg,the Easter bunny, sunrise services, hot cross buns, all borrowed from Baal worship. And I know that most of us are totally aware of that, but we don't incorporate it into our worship as of a necessity, nor do we claim that any of it is Biblical.
Sunday however is a different kettle of fish altogether. It is thoroughly pagan in origin, and the church claims it as God inspired. Regardless of the fact that Sunday as a blessed, sanctified, holy day, has absolutely no foundation in the scripture record.If Weigall is insufficient as a reliable source however then would you consider the following comments with respect to Sunday?
First, just as a means to establish that not only Sabbath observers read the Bible and come to the conclusion they do.

"For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday,then it was not easy to answer the question: who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has had the right to do it?"
George Sverdrup 'A New Day'
Lutheran Free Church.

"And where are we told in the scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh,but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day."
Canon Eyton The Ten Commandments
Anglican

"It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism. Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week. Many believe that Christ changed the Sabbath. But from His own words, we see that He came for no such purpose. Those who believe that Jesus changed the Sabbath base it only on supposition."
Amos Binney Theological Compendium pp180-181
Methodist

"The sacred name of the seventh day is Sabbath. The fact is too clear to require argument...on this point the plain teaching of the word has been admitted in all ages...Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week-that folly was left for a later age,nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.
Joseph Judson Taylor 'The Sabbath Question' pp 14,15 16-17,41
Southern Baptist

So it would appear that Sunday, as a scripturally based day of designated worship to replace the Sabbath, is unfounded as attested to by many others than just Sabbitarians.

So that leaves the question, the subject of this thread, where did it come from?

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 07:08 AM

So it would appear that Sunday, as a scripturally based day of designated worship to replace the Sabbath, is unfounded as attested to by many others than just Sabbitarians.

So that leaves the question, the subject of this thread, where did it come from?

Those that believe as the ones quoted are rare and far and few between. We all know the vast majority believe differently and know that NT scripture shows worship was on Sundays for Christians. Since the Sabbath was no longer commanded and it was up to each to decide, a majority decided to esteem Sundays and worship on that day which was very wise because it was a sign to the world of the change of religion from Judaism to Christianity.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 07:11 AM

I'll be honest. I had no idea who Weigall was. I certainly do not agree with his views on the Sabbath,(if indeed your quote is contextually correct) nor do I agree with him re the trinity.

No offense Brakelite but do you know who any of these other people are either or did you just find all these quotes on some type of a SA/SDA site?(yes I use Google)

Do you know anything about George Sverdrup, Canon Eyton, Amos Binney or Joseph Judson Taylor aside from the little bit these types of websites include?

brakelite

Apr 28th 2008, 08:14 AM

Those that believe as the ones quoted are rare and far and few between. We all know the vast majority believe differently and know that NT scripture shows worship was on Sundays for Christians.
Oh??????? So how come you have so abjectly failed to prove that in any of the discussions we have had on the subject by providing the scriptures that do so?

Since the Sabbath was no longer commanded and it was up to each to decide,
Reminds me of the days at the time of the Judges.
Jud 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Perhaps they chose Sunday because they had lost touch with Israel's King?

a majority decided to esteem Sundays and worship on that day which was very wise because it was a sign to the world of the change of religion from Judaism to Christianity.

At last you finally agree with me.:bounce::pp That the change was made by church members and not authorized by scripture. Although I disagree strongly that it was a majority. In the beginning it was only in Rome. Christians elsewhere for hundreds of years after the apostolic age continued to keep the 7th day Sabbath. The reason Sunday popularity spread through later centuries was through persecution by the Roman church of those who desired to keep Sabbath.

It was wise in a way, yes. It did show the then Roman world that Christianity was different from Judaism. Keeping Sunday probably saved the lives of many Christians from being mistaken as Jews and being crucified, seeing as how popular sunday was with the Roman sun worshippers.

brakelite

Apr 28th 2008, 08:26 AM

No offense Brakelite but do you know who any of these other people are either or did you just find all these quotes on some type of a SA/SDA site?(yes I use Google)

Do you know anything about George Sverdrup, Canon Eyton, Amos Binney or Joseph Judson Taylor aside from the little bit these types of websites include?

Actually it would have been a lot easier if I had used another site, but no, I typed them all from quotes taken from a book at home.

I think history would be a very short study if we could only quote from those people with which we have had a personal acquaintance or whose works with which we are thoroughly familiar.

And it is a very weak attempt to redirect the debate from the truth of what they say.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 08:28 AM

Oh??????? So how come you have so abjectly failed to prove that in any of the discussions we have had on the subject by providing the scriptures that do so?

I actually haven't been asked to do so but others have already in this thread and they proved it. It is a historical fact that Christians always worshipped on Sundays...only some did not and do not.

Reminds me of the days at the time of the Judges.
Jud 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Perhaps they chose Sunday because they had lost touch with Israel's King?

Quite the opposite actually. Those that knew Christ worshipped him on his day, Sunday.

At last you finally agree with me.:bounce::pp That the change was made by church members and not authorized by scripture.

Scripture doesn't command what day to worship on. It does say we can decide for ourselves what day to esteem above other days so the majority decided on Sundays.

Although I disagree strongly that it was a majority. In the beginning it was only in Rome. Christians elsewhere for hundreds of years after the apostolic age continued to keep the 7th day Sabbath. The reason Sunday popularity spread through later centuries was through persecution by the Roman church of those who desired to keep Sabbath.

That's revisionist history but believe what you want to. Christians stopped keeping Saturdays after his death and even today. Only some kept Saturdays for worship and kept Saturdays as the Sabbath.

It was wise in a way, yes. It did show the then Roman world that Christianity was different from Judaism.

Rome only made official what was already in practice for hundreds of years. If Christianity already did not worship on Sundays Rome wouldn't have made such a decree.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 08:44 AM

I think history would be a very short study if we could only quote from those people with which we have had a personal acquaintance or whose works with which we are thoroughly familiar.

I just want to know if I can trust your recommendation of these people...especially since the first one you gave turns out to be someone you don't really agree with anyways. Seems like sloppiness to me...

You don't need to "personally" know these poeple...I think they a re all dead but at least know what they actually stand for not basing that on one or two quotes from a "book". What's the name of that book BTW?

And it is a very weak attempt to redirect the debate from the truth of what they say.

Some you are miss-taking, and some is simply incorrect. Barely worth a comment :)

Studyin'2Show

Apr 28th 2008, 11:40 AM

Is this about seeking the truth in God's Word or merely about an attempt to 'one up' someone who disagrees with your position? :rolleyes: Let's play nice, okay? We need to remember that we are ALL on the side of Messiah, and thus, though we clearly disagree on many things ON THE SAME SIDE! ;)

God Bless!

TEITZY

Apr 28th 2008, 12:09 PM

Though you choose to worship on Saturday (I have no problems with this) it's unlikely that you actually 'observe' the sabbath as it is laid out in the OT. For example, you are not supposed to travel any further than one mile on the sabbath amongst other things. Also, sabbath's didn't always fall on a the same day (Lev 23:39), some lasted longer than a day (Lev 23:6-8, 15-22; 25:4), and often there was more than one sabbath in a week during the various Jewish feasts. If you want put yourself under the bondage of the sabbath regulations, go for it, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to keep it!

As to your original question, it is clear that the early church met together on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2). Can you provide one example in Acts or the Epistles where it explicitly states that the church met on a Saturday? I've provided 2 examples that say they met on a Sunday, so if this is a minority view there should be many more examples of Christians meeting together on the Jewish Sabbath. Furthermore, early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius (100-165 AD) also testify to worshipping on Sunday not Saturday.

If the Sabbath was an essential for Christians, why did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 neglect to inform the Gentile believers that they must keep the sabbath? It was Jewish believers (verse 5) who insisted that it was "necessary" for Gentiles to be circumcised and "to keep the law of Moses.” And yet what does James say in verse 10?

Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

So you think you can obey the sabbath do you? Well James says neither he nor his forefathers could, and if the Jews couldn't keep it perfectly well I think you're going to struggle as well.

Cheers
Leigh

Studyin'2Show

Apr 28th 2008, 01:58 PM

Though you choose to worship on Saturday (I have no problems with this) it's unlikely that you actually 'observe' the sabbath as it is laid out in the OT. For example, you are not supposed to travel any further than one mile on the sabbath amongst other things. Also, sabbath's didn't always fall on a the same day (Lev 23:39), some lasted longer than a day (Lev 23:6-8, 15-22; 25:4), and often there was more than one sabbath in a week during the various Jewish feasts. If you want put yourself under the bondage of the sabbath regulations, go for it, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to keep it!

As to your original question, it is clear that the early church met together on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2). Can you provide one example in Acts or the Epistles where it explicitly states that the church met on a Saturday? I've provided 2 examples that say they met on a Sunday, so if this is a minority view there should be many more examples of Christians meeting together on the Jewish Sabbath. Furthermore, early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius (100-165 AD) also testify to worshipping on Sunday not Saturday.

If the Sabbath was an essential for Christians, why did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 neglect to inform the Gentile believers that they must keep the sabbath? It was Jewish believers (verse 5) who insisted that it was "necessary" for Gentiles to be circumcised and "to keep the law of Moses.” And yet what does James say in verse 10?

Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

So you think you can obey the sabbath do you? Well James says neither he nor his forefathers could, and if the Jews couldn't keep it perfectly well I think you're going to struggle as well.

Cheers
LeighLeigh, I greatly respect your opinion, however, I believe this post exhibits a bit of the 'tone' that fosters the conflict in this issue. The fact is that we don't have to come into this discussion as if we are in some sort of 'worship day' competition. Not so. You asked if there are any scriptures that show that early believers worshiped on the Sabbath, well the fact is that there are. And there are also scriptures that show that they worshiped DAILY which would be EVERY day including Saturday AND Sunday.

Acts 13:42-44
42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

Acts 16:13 - And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

Acts 17:2-4
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

Acts 18:4 - And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 2:46-47
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 5:42 - And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

And yes, you are correct that there are scriptures, as well, that show they met on Sunday. I say worship Him EVERY day, fellowship ANY day, and remember! What should we remember? :hmm: Hmmm :D I think too many forget to stop and listen. Everyone is always so busy, busy, busy. I have seen far too many believers burn themselves out and forget to remember. :( That's no good for them or the body of believers. Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was made FOR us yet the religious system had turned it into a burden for the backs of observers. That doesn't sound like it was FOR them does it.

Another thing I wanted to point out from your post was something you said about walking only one mile on the Sabbath. That will not be found in scripture. It comes from what is called the oral law based on Exodus 16:29. So, you are right that I do not observe it as the religious leaders of 2000 years ago or even as the orthodox or reformed Jews of this age. I remember it the way I believe my Savior intended. I don't need an oral law to be a burden on my back. I am not UNDER the Law, I have learned from it. As a mature believer, I have the Holy Spirit which has led and guided me to where I am today. I trust that you have followed as He has guided you. And I am sure that whatever our opinion on this issue, we are clearly on the same side in Messiah! :pp

God Bless!

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 10:21 PM

Another thing I wanted to point out from your post was something you said about walking only one mile on the Sabbath. That will not be found in scripture. It comes from what is called the oral law based on Exodus 16:29.

That part of the law is just as much a part of the OT law and regulations as any of the rest concerning the Sabbath. But, we are free from the OT law, all of the OT law not free from only some parts which includes being free to work on the Sabbath, travel, gather sticks, gather food, kindle fire...no restrictions :)

Brother Mark

Apr 28th 2008, 10:24 PM

That part of the law is just as much a part of the OT law and regulations as any of the rest concerning the Sabbath.

Actually, they weren't. Jesus dealt with that in scripture.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 10:38 PM

Actually, they weren't. Jesus dealt with that in scripture.

By all means supply the scripture.

Brother Mark

Apr 28th 2008, 10:41 PM

By all means supply the scripture.

Mark 7:3-8
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

'This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 'But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
NASB

Jesus clearly made a distinction here between the "traditions" and the law.

There are other scriptures as well.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 10:43 PM

Exodus 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

This is as much law as gathering extra food on a Friday so no work is done gathering on a Saturday. This never changed until the law was abolished and we were set free from it. This is also why Christ said this:

Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Because those bound to the OT Sabbath had travel restrictions commanded from God. It was man that added to them and most likely gave specific lengths. Man probably lengthened the distances rather than shortened them as God has them already fairly short.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 10:44 PM

Mark 7:3-8
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

'This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 'But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
NASB

Jesus clearly made a distinction here between the "traditions" and the law.

There are other scriptures as well.

None of that speaks against the travel limitations set by God, and doesn't even address any set by man. Christ is never accused of walking too far by the Pharisees. Contextually the traditions spoken against have to do with ritual washing.

Brother Mark

Apr 28th 2008, 10:54 PM

None of that speaks against the travel limitations set by God, and doesn't even address any set by man. Christ is never accused of walking too far by the Pharisees. Contextually the traditions spoken against have to do with ritual washing.

He spoke against other traditions. The point is, that he clearly stated we are not to make the traditions of man equal to doctrines of God. Hence, the traditions were never held by Jesus to be on equal footing with the Law. He actually showed disdain for them. There really is no need to think traditions are on par with commands.

losthorizon

Apr 28th 2008, 11:09 PM

...I'll be honest. I had no idea who Weigall was. I certainly do not agree with his views on the Sabbath,(if indeed your quote is contextually correct) nor do I agree with him re the trinity. But the quote I used for this discussion I believe to be absolutely accurate.

My quote is accurate and I also will be honest -the fact remains that Weigall thinks all Judeo-Christian practices go back to some paganistic origin including the Sabbath commanded by God to the Jews only. This kind of shoddy “scholarship” reminds me of what many on this board float regarding the so-called "pagan" origins of Christian worship on the first day of the week - it is totally untrue and misrepresents history and those who teach such misinformation to the weak in faith should be ashamed. The Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the pattern set for the church in the NT and the early church universally followed that same pattern.

For anyone who wants to read the truth about church history from a first-class church historian please read the excellent work - HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, by Phillip Schaff. Schaff is considered the “authority” on church history and he totally destroys the notion floated by the SDA organization and many Sabbatarians on this board who insist that Constantine or some man changed the Sabbath to Sunday some four hundred years after the apostolic age. The truth is those disciples of Christ who were taught “the faith” at the feet of the apostles held their public worship to God on Sunday as revealed in His word and they universally rejected Sabbath keeping as "a shadow" that belonged to the old Mosaic system and was never applicable to Christians. Don’t be fooled by those who use shoddy scholarship to promote non-biblical dogma.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)I will paste below excerpts from Schaff’s work under the heading “The Lord’s Day”. Please note the Lord’s Day is “in memory of the resurrection of Christ” which took place upon the first day of the week (Sunday) and it was “the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century” and was so taught by the writers of the Didache and all the early church leaders - Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth and Tertullian who wrote, "We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals. :hmm:
“The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” ~ Phillip Schaff

Studyin'2Show

Apr 28th 2008, 11:17 PM

Exodus 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.What is my place, Naphal? Being a woman, some might say it's in the kitchen. :rolleyes: Is that what God intended, that I stay in the kitchen? Is it my home or my entire property? In some cases someone's property could go for miles. Is it my city? Joshua and the people walked around the entire city SEVEN times on the Sabbath following God's direction. Were they under the OT system? The dictionary definition of the word 'place' is so vast that it can vary from the specific place where something is positioned to an entire nation. Let's not create a burden where there is none, which, BTW is what the religious system 2000 years ago had come to.

So, beyond that, as for the Sabbath, it may be more productive to look at the positive. I've mentioned before that Yeshua said the Sabbath was made FOR man. The way many see the Sabbath is that it was against man, but that goes against what Messiah said. I look at it like this. I have to make my 7 yr old brush her teeth. I know that having a good dental regiment is crucial to her health and happiness. She doesn't see it that way right now. When she is older, more mature, I will no longer have to MAKE her brush her teeth because she will learn that it is good so it no longer has to be regulated by me. In the same way, rest is good. Taking time to stop is crucial to remember. ;) Too many forget that, as simple as it seems. Isn't it interesting that it is the one commandment of the ten that we are told simply to remember? Is almost like He knew that we would forget. :hmm:

God Bless!

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 11:17 PM

He spoke against other traditions. The point is, that he clearly stated we are not to make the traditions of man equal to doctrines of God. Hence, the traditions were never held by Jesus to be on equal footing with the Law. He actually showed disdain for them. There really is no need to think traditions are on par with commands.

No one says traditions are, but scripture does not claim travel limitation on the Sabbath was man made. It was God made and it isn't shown to have been removed during OT times.

Please answer why Christ said they should pray their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 11:19 PM

[quote=losthorizon;1620471]My quote is accurate and I also will be honest -the fact remains that Weigall thinks all Judeo-Christian practices go back to some paganistic origin including the Sabbath commanded by God to the Jews only. This kind of shoddy “scholarship” reminds me of what many on this board float regarding the so-called "pagan" origins of Christian worship on the first day of the week - it is totally untrue and misrepresents history and those who teach such misinformation to the weak in faith should be ashamed. The Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the pattern set for the church in the NT and the early church universally followed that same pattern.

For anyone who wants to read the truth about church history from a first-class church historian please read the excellent work - HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, by Phillip Schaff. Schaff is considered the “authority” on church history and he totally destroys the notion floated by the SDA organization and many Sabbatarians on this board who insist that Constantine or some man changed the Sabbath to Sunday some four hundred years after the apostolic age. The truth is those disciples of Christ who were taught “the faith” at the feet of the apostles held their public worship to God on Sunday as revealed in His word and they universally rejected Sabbath keeping as "a shadow" that belonged to the old Mosaic system and was never applicable to Christians. Don’t be fooled by those who use shoddy scholarship to promote non-biblical dogma.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)I will paste below excerpts from Schaff’s work under the heading “The Lord’s Day”. Please note the Lord’s Day is “in memory of the resurrection of Christ” which took place upon the first day of the week (Sunday) and it was “the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century” and was so taught by the writers of the Didache and all the early church leaders - Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth and Tertullian who wrote, "We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals. :hmm:
“The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” ~ Phillip Schaff[/quote

Amen to that!

Studyin'2Show

Apr 28th 2008, 11:27 PM

Please answer why Christ said they should pray their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath.Because the Sabbath is to enjoy rest not to have to run for your life. Not only would they have to run for their lives but they would miss out on their weekly chance to regenerate. That would be a bad thing. ;) Curious, in your view Messiah would have known that He was about to abolish the Sabbath, so why would it matter that it was the Sabbath?

God Bless!

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 11:29 PM

What is my place, Naphal? Being a woman, some might say it's in the kitchen. :rolleyes: Is that what God intended, that I stay in the kitchen? Is it my home or my entire property? In some cases someone's property could go for miles. Is it my city? Joshua and the people walked around the entire city SEVEN times following God's direction. Were they under the OT system? The dictionary definition of the word 'place' is so vast that it can vary from the specific place where something is positioned to an entire nation.

It has no specific definition but it was designed to keep someone from traveling all over the place as they might on any other day. It was designed to keep one with their family, at home or near there. No work was to be done and one should have fellowship with one's family.

Isn't it interesting that it is the one commandment of the ten that we are told simply to remember? Is almost like He knew that we would forget.

Actually we are not commanded to remember it, with even Jesus himself leaving it out of which commandments needed for eternal life. The 4th commandment was fulfilled and we should remember what Christ did for us but remembering to rest on Saturdays just isn't a commandment any longer. It's ok to keep it if you wish, Paul is clear on that, but we cannot judge others for not keeping it as well :) That's basically the tone of this thread so far. Those that believe it's a sin not to keep it and that it's law we are under right now and those of us that believe it is not a law we are under and that there is no sin treating a Saturday like any other day of the week.

Naphal

Apr 28th 2008, 11:32 PM

Because the Sabbath is to enjoy rest not to have to run for your life. Not only would they have to run for their lives but they would miss out on their weekly chance to regenerate. That would be a bad thing. ;) Curious, in your view Messiah would have known that He was about to abolish the Sabbath, so why would it matter that it was the Sabbath?

God Bless!

Because he knew many would still be keeping it...

Contextually it isn't hoping the flight doesn't come on a day that would make us miss out on pleasant things. It's examples of how travel would be either extremely hard or impossible...about to deliver a baby, in winter, or the Sabbath...all hinder travel for various reasons.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 28th 2008, 11:58 PM

Because he knew many would still be keeping it...

Contextually it isn't hoping the flight doesn't come on a day that would make us miss out on pleasant things. It's examples of how travel would be either extremely hard or impossible...about to deliver a baby, in winter, or the Sabbath...all hinder travel for various reasons.I thought you agreed with losthorizon that everyone changed to Sunday worship. He was speaking to His disciples when He said this. Isn't it your assertion that His disciples stopped keeping Sabbath? So, why would they need to pray that it wouldn't come on the Sabbath? The Sabbath would no longer have any meaning to them, right?

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:26 AM

I thought you agreed with losthorizon that everyone changed to Sunday worship.

Not everyone, just most.

He was speaking to His disciples when He said this. Isn't it your assertion that His disciples stopped keeping Sabbath?

He was speaking of a future generation. Christ knew it wasn't going to occur at that time.

So, why would they need to pray that it wouldn't come on the Sabbath? The Sabbath would no longer have any meaning to them, right?

He was speaking to those who would still be keeping the Sabbath and it's regulations...specifically not to travel far from home. That would make someone have to break the Sabbath in order to reach freedom. The point is they wouldn't do it and they'd be in danger.

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:28 AM

That would make someone have to break the Sabbath in order to reach freedom. The point is they wouldn't do it and they'd be in danger.

God didn't considered it breaking the law when mercy was shown. That was why it was OK to get the ox out of the ditch on the sabbath or to heal on the sabbath or for David to eat the show bread, which was not lawful to eat. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

It would not be breaking the law to flee on the Sabbath.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:31 AM

It would not be breaking the law to flee on the Sabbath.

It would be to a legalist and that's my point. Back to why this was brought up, traveling on the Sabbath was something God limited, not man.

If all understood it the way you say, then Christ wouldn't have needed to say what he did. But in context Christ is relating inability to escape the area with the Sabbath.

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:34 AM

It would be to a legalist and that's my point. Back to why this was brought up, traveling on the Sabbath was something God limited, not man.

God didn't limit how far a man could travel on the Sabbath. He never put a number on it. Tradition did. Jesus walked on the Sabbath. He was walking through grain field gleaning something to eat. ;)

If all understood it the way you say, then Christ wouldn't have needed to say what he did. But in context Christ is relating inability to escape the area with the Sabbath.

He said what he said. But he said other things about the Sabbath that I posted before. He clearly did not consider it breaking the sabbath to walk on the sabbath, or to glean grain for food on the sabbath or to get an ox out of the ditch on the sabbath.

If it is OK to rescue an ox, and we are worth much more (according to Jesus own teachings) than an ox, then it is OK to get rescue man on the sabbath as well.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:37 AM

God didn't limit how far a man could travel on the Sabbath. He never put a number on it.

God didn't put a number on it but he did limit how far one should travel.

Jesus walked on the Sabbath. He was walking through grain field gleaning something to eat. ;)

Jesus did everything on a Sabbath he would do on any other day.

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:38 AM

God didn't put a number on it but he did limit how far one should travel.

Except if mercy was required to be shown. No limit then.

Jesus did everything on a Sabbath he would do on any other day.

Jesus fully kept the Sabbath holy and separate. He never broke one law of God. He completely and fully kept the entire OT law.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 12:39 AM

Naphal, I remember the Sabbath yet I am NOT under any regulation that would prohibit me from fleeing on the Sabbath. Even an orthodox Jew would flee for their life on the Sabbath. Life ALWAYS takes precedence! ;) The Sabbath would not keep anyone, legalist or not, from fleeing.

God Bless!

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:42 AM

Jesus fully kept the Sabbath holy and separate. He never broke one law of God. He completely and fully kept the entire OT law.

Ever heard of "profaning the Sabbath but remaining blameless"?

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:43 AM

The Sabbath would not keep anyone, legalist or not, from fleeing.

God Bless!

I disagree. He said they should pray it doesn't occur on the Sabbath for a real reason....if there wasn't any reason the Sabbath would hinder their flight he wouldn't have said what he did. Context.

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:47 AM

Ever heard of "profaning the Sabbath but remaining blameless"?

As I said, it's about mercy. That's what he taught. David ate the showbread but he didn't "break" the law because a greater law was at work. Ambulances speed, but they aren't breaking the law when they take someone to the hospital. That's the whole point Jesus was teaching.

losthorizon

Apr 29th 2008, 12:49 AM

Because the Sabbath is to enjoy rest not to have to run for your life. Not only would they have to run for their lives but they would miss out on their weekly chance to regenerate. That would be a bad thing. ;) Curious, in your view Messiah would have known that He was about to abolish the Sabbath, so why would it matter that it was the Sabbath?

God Bless!
Jesus certainly knew the Sabbath along with the entire Levitical system was to shortly be nailed to His cross but He lived and died under that same system -ie- He was born a Jew and He died a Jew. Perfection could not be obtained under the Levitical priesthood - for under it the people received the law – but under the new law and new priesthood with our great High Priest we now have perfection. The Sabbath was a shadow of what was to come and now Messiah has come – the law and the priesthood have been changed and that includes the Sabbath requirement. It was never commanded for anyone other than the Jews. It was not commanded to the Patriarchs and it is never commanded for Christians.
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12 (KJV)

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:51 AM

As I said, it's about mercy. That's what he taught. David ate the showbread but he didn't "break" the law because a greater law was at work. Ambulances speed, but they aren't breaking the law when they take someone to the hospital. That's the whole point Jesus was teaching.

Actually they are breaking the law but they have an excuse which renders them guiltless. That's what Christ was teaching.

Here we have speeding tickets which give you three options. Guilty, not guilty, or you admit to speeding but you have a valid excuse.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 12:53 AM

I disagree. He said they should pray it doesn't occur on the Sabbath for a real reason....if there wasn't any reason the Sabbath would hinder their flight he wouldn't have said what he did. Context.Have you considered that the 'real reason' would be that Yeshua considered the Sabbath a precious gift FOR the people and recognized that if they had to flee during it, they would miss it. Simple. But no, no one would wait for certain death rather than flee and God wouldn't expect them to. ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:54 AM

Actually they are breaking the law but they have an excuse which renders them guiltless. That's what Christ was teaching.

Here we have speeding tickets which give you three options. Guilty, not guilty, or you admit to speeding but you have a valid excuse.

Sin is a transgression of the law. Jesus did not sin. Therefor, he did not transgress the law. He knew the heart of the Father. There were no "excuses" but there were exceptions. And that was what Jesus understood.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:56 AM

Have you considered that the 'real reason' would be that Yeshua considered the Sabbath a precious gift FOR the people and recognized that if they had to flee during it, they would miss it. Simple. But no, no one would wait for certain death rather than flee and God wouldn't expect them to. ;)

God Bless!

It doesn't fit the context.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 12:58 AM

Sin is a transgression of the law. Jesus did not sin.

Jesus didn't sin because he was blameless in breaking the Sabbath for a higher cause just as all his examples.

There were no "excuses" but there were exceptions.

Same thing.

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 01:05 AM

Jesus didn't sin because he was blameless in breaking the Sabbath for a higher cause just as all his examples.

Same thing.

If you want to consider it "breaking". It might be technical, but it is important. Jesus didn't "break" the law. He kept it in exactly the way God wanted it kept.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 01:07 AM

If you want to consider it "breaking". It might be technical, but it is important. Jesus didn't "break" the law. He kept it in exactly the way God wanted it kept.

How about breaking the letter (with proper excuse/exception) but not the Spirit of it?

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 01:08 AM

How about breaking the letter (with proper excuse/exception) but not the Spirit of it?

When the letter of the law is superceded with another law, it is not broken. One law does not stand on it's own. It is part of the whole law. That's why James said if we break one law, we are guilty of all the law. So Jesus didn't break any part of the law. The exception WAS part of the law.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 01:10 AM

When the letter of the law is superceded with another law, it is not broken.

Ok, well we disagree then.

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 01:22 AM

It doesn't fit the context.I think it fits it perfectly. What does not fit is that Yeshua would think that people would stay home and wait for death if it was the Sabbath. As I said, not even the most strict observant Jew would do that so as_uming Yeshua meant that does not fit the context. ;)

God Bless!

brakelite

Apr 29th 2008, 01:28 AM

My quote is accurate and I also will be honest -the fact remains that Weigall thinks all Judeo-Christian practices go back to some paganistic origin including the Sabbath commanded by God to the Jews only. This kind of shoddy “scholarship” reminds me of what many on this board float regarding the so-called "pagan" origins of Christian worship on the first day of the week - it is totally untrue and misrepresents history and those who teach such misinformation to the weak in faith should be ashamed. The Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the pattern set for the church in the NT and the early church universally followed that same pattern.
History declares itself to be somewhat different than what you espouse;
4th cent
"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.

"In the last half of that century (4th) St. Ambrose of Milan stated officially that the Abyssinian bishop, Museus, had 'traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres' (China). For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment." Ambrose, DeMoribus, Brachmanorium Opera Ominia, 1132, found in Migne, Patrologia Latima, Vol.17, pp.1131,1132.
5th cent
Canon 26 of the Council of Elvira reveals that the Church of Spain at that time kept Saturday, the seventh day. "As to fasting every Sabbath: Resolved, that the error be corrected of fasting every Sabbath." This resolution of the council is in direct opposition to the policy the church at Rome had inaugurated, that of commanding Sabbath as a fast day in order to humiliate it and make it repugnant to the people.

"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 7, chap.19.

"For although almost all churches throughout The World celebrated the sacred mysteries (the Lord's Supper) on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath." It says: "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called "the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.

"Mingana proves that in 410 Isaac, supreme director of the Church of the East, held a world council,-stimulated, some think, by the trip of Musacus,-attended by eastern delegates from forty grand metroolitan divisions. In 411 he appointed a metropolitan director for China. These churches were sanctifying the seventh day."
6th cent
"In this latter instance they seemed to have followed a custom of which we find traces in the early monastic church of Ireland by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labours." W.T. Skene, "Adamnan Llife of St. Columbs" 1874, p.96.

"Having continued his labours in Scotland thirty-four years, he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday, the month of June, said to his disciple Diermit: "This day is called the Sabbath, that is the rest day, and such will it truly be to me; for it will put an end to my labours.'" "Butler's Lives of the Saints," Vol.1, A.D. 597, art. "St. Columba" p. 762
7th cent
Professor James C. Moffatt, D.D., Professor of Church History at Princeton, says: It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of week." "The Church in Scotland," p.140.

"The Celts used a Latin Bible unlike the Vulgate (R.C.) and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious services on Sunday." Flick, "The Rise of Mediaeval Church," p. 237

Gregory I (A.D. 590-640) wrote against "Roman citizens (who) forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day." "Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers," Second Series, Vol, XIII, p.13, epist. 1

"Gregory, bishop by the grace of God to his well-beloved sons, the Roman citizens: It has come to me that certain men of perverse spirit have disseminated among you things depraved and opposed to the holy faith, so that they forbid anything to be done on the day of the Sabbath. What shall I call them except preachers of anti-Christ?" Epistles, b.13:1

Declared that when anti-Christ should come he would keep Saturday as the Sabbath. "Epistles of Gregory I, "b 13, epist.1. found in "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers."

"Moreover, this same Pope Gregory had issued an official pronouncement against a section of the city of Rome itself because the Christian believers there rested and worshipped on the Sabbath." Same reference.

That takes us up to the 7th cent so far. Schaffs assertion that the early church 'universally" kept sunday seems to be a little muddled.

For anyone who wants to read the truth about church history from a first-class church historian please read the excellent work - HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, by Phillip Schaff. Schaff is considered the “authority” on church history and he totally destroys the notion floated by the SDA organization and many Sabbatarians on this board who insist that Constantine or some man changed the Sabbath to Sunday some four hundred years after the apostolic age. The truth is those disciples of Christ who were taught “the faith” at the feet of the apostles held their public worship to God on Sunday as revealed in His word and they universally rejected Sabbath keeping as "a shadow" that belonged to the old Mosaic system and was never applicable to Christians.
Actually, I don't know of anyone who has changed the Sabbath. Some have tried by introducing Sunday, (even by passing legislation through the state as Constantine did) and forcing the church to downplay the Sabbath through fasting etc., but sorry, the Sabbath still stands. And according to Isaiah, always will.

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

TEITZY

Apr 29th 2008, 02:12 AM

Leigh, I greatly respect your opinion, however, I believe this post exhibits a bit of the 'tone' that fosters the conflict in this issue. The fact is that we don't have to come into this discussion as if we are in some sort of 'worship day' competition. Not so. You asked if there are any scriptures that show that early believers worshiped on the Sabbath, well the fact is that there are. And there are also scriptures that show that they worshiped DAILY which would be EVERY day including Saturday AND Sunday.

No "competition" here. The first thing I said is that I don't have a problem with Saturday, just as Paul said it should not be an issue of contention in Romans 14:5-6. However the OP is clearly saying that Saturday is THE day that Christians should observe and associates 'Sunday Worship' with paganism!

As for the verses you quoted, yes they do mention the "Sabbath", but I specifically said:

Can you provide one example in Acts or the Epistles where it explicitly states that the church met on a Saturday?

Yes Paul regularly preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath, but these were not church meetings. In Acts 16 there wasn't even a church in Philippi when Paul got there. Paul's "custom" was to first go to the synagogue in each city but it appears that Philippi didn't have one, perhaps due to a small population of Jews (I believe you needed at least 10 Jewish men to form a synagogue) and so instead the Jews would meet outdoors which is where Paul finds Lydia and the others. Yes Acts 2 says that they met together on a daily basis, which further erodes the OP belief that Saturday was and still is THE day that the Christians should observe. While the church met daily during it's early foundational years, it becomes clear that by the end of Acts, a pattern of Sunday worship had become the norm for Christians.

And yes, you are correct that there are scriptures, as well, that show they met on Sunday. I say worship Him EVERY day, fellowship ANY day, and remember! What should we remember? :hmm: Hmmm :D I think too many forget to stop and listen. Everyone is always so busy, busy, busy. I have seen far too many believers burn themselves out and forget to remember. :( That's no good for them or the body of believers.

I agree.

Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was made FOR us yet the religious system had turned it into a burden for the backs of observers. That doesn't sound like it was FOR them does it.

Actually the Law in its purest form has always been a "burden" for Jews and Gentiles alike. Yes the religious leaders made it even more difficult to observe than what it already was, but it was and still is a burden. The purpose of God in giving the Law to Israel was to highlight their total inability to keep it! In doing so, God desired that sinners would see their inability to obey the Law and turn to Him for forgiveness. Yes the Sabbath was a day of rest, but the regulations regarding Sabbath days (not just Saturday) are quite extensive and I would suggest not that easy to obey perfectly.

Another thing I wanted to point out from your post was something you said about walking only one mile on the Sabbath. That will not be found in scripture. It comes from what is called the oral law based on Exodus 16:29. So, you are right that I do not observe it as the religious leaders of 2000 years ago or even as the orthodox or reformed Jews of this age. I remember it the way I believe my Savior intended. I don't need an oral law to be a burden on my back. I am not UNDER the Law, I have learned from it. As a mature believer, I have the Holy Spirit which has led and guided me to where I am today. I trust that you have followed as He has guided you. And I am sure that whatever our opinion on this issue, we are clearly on the same side in Messiah! :pp

God Bless!

That's an interesting point about the distance on the Sabbath as I thought there was something more specific in the OT. Acts 1:12 actually mentions a "Sabbath day's journey" and it would appear from Exd 16:29 that there is some restriction on traveling on the Sabbath and perhaps an implication from verses like Num 35:5 & Josh 3:4 that it is about 2000 cubits (1000 yards) in one direction.

I understand what you're saying about not being "under the Law", however I don't think the person who insists on keeping the Sabbath can just dismiss all the Sabbath regulations, because their justification for ONLY observing the Sabbath and not other days, comes from the OT not the NT. IMO you cannot disassociate Sabbath regulations from the day itself if you are going to quote the OT as your 'proof' that the Sabbath must be kept. Unlike the other 9 commandments which are moral in nature, the Sabbath is primarily a ceremonial law with moral or spiritual implications regarding rest. This is why I believe the NT gives no commandment for Christians to observe the Sabbath, due to its highly ceremonial or ritual-like nature.

If you found the "tone" of my original post a little strong, it was because of my dislike of legalism, which is precisely what the OP is guily of. I do not push my preference for Sunday worship down other people's throats, nor do I oppose those who choose to worship on some other day. However I do become annoyed when people place "stumbling blocks" such as insistence on 'keeping the Sabbath' in the path of younger or less mature believers. This is both potentially destructive and dangerous, since at the least it can "wound their weak conscience" causing them to sin, or at worst it can ruin their faith.

If any believer becomes convinced that they must worship on Saturday, if they stay at a Sunday worshipping church then they are going against their conscience and therefore sinning. If they decide to leave and look for a 'church' that worships on Saturday, then they are more than likely going to end up in a false or counterfeit 'Christian' church where their faith will likely be "shipwrecked".

Cheers
Leigh

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:34 AM

No "competition" here. The first thing I said is that I don't have a problem with Saturday, just as Paul said it should not be an issue of contention in Romans 14:5-6. However the OP is clearly saying that Saturday is THE day that Christians should observe and associates 'Sunday Worship' with paganism!

If you found the "tone" of my original post a little strong, it was because of my dislike of legalism, which is precisely what the OP is guily of. I do not push my preference for Sunday worship down other people's throats, nor do I oppose those who choose to worship on some other day. However I do become annoyed when people place "stumbling blocks" such as insistence on 'keeping the Sabbath' in the path of younger or less mature believers. This is both potentially destructive and dangerous, since at the least it can "wound their weak conscience" causing them to sin, or at worst it can ruin their faith.Hey Leigh! I took out all but these two points (which are really one) because your post was the one right before this one so I figured anyone can go back and read it. :D As for the 'tone' and the 'competition' thing, I wasn't just singling your post out sans the others but yours was simply the last one so I used it as the example. There should be no 'competition' spirit here. 'The church' most definitely met on the Sabbath! They also met on the first day, and the second, and the third.....! Get my point? You don't have to attempt to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the Sabbath, someone else need not try to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the first day. It is quite clear that they met on ALL days!

Acts 18:4 - And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 2:46-47
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 5:42 - And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

They did not start a NEW religion. They did not suddenly worship the Christian God rather than the Jewish God as some suppose. How are we to bring the Jews to jealousy if they really believe we are worshiping a different God?

Now, where we clearly disagree is that the Law as it was intended by the Father was a 'burden'. A simple reading of the Psalms especially Psalm 119 (it's long but it's worth reading). However, that's a topic for another thread so I won't derail this one. :D

Let's take a look at that 4th commandment that seems to cause all the hub-bub.

Exodus 20:8 - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Not so burdensome if you look at it. And as a mother of three, wife of one, I sure see no burden in taking a day off! :lol:

God Bless!

losthorizon

Apr 29th 2008, 11:48 AM

History declares itself to be somewhat different than what you espouse;

That may be your reality but I choose to believe the word of God and reputable historians. Your man Weigall denies the Trinity and he calls the Sabbath a "pagan day". The church of God during the apostolic age and beyond held her public worship on the same day Jesus Christ arose from the grave – the Lord’s day – the first day of the week – Sunday. This is what true historians write.

That same church had “nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals” which were a shadow of what was to come – and the Christ had come prior to their day - the shadow was no longer needed. Have you ever found the “thus saith the Lord” that Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath or are you still looking? ;)
“The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice..." ~ Phillip Schaff

And upon the first y of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)

TEITZY

Apr 29th 2008, 12:08 PM

'The church' most definitely met on the Sabbath! They also met on the first day, and the second, and the third.....! Get my point? You don't have to attempt to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the Sabbath, someone else need not try to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the first day. It is quite clear that they met on ALL days!

Acts 18:4 - And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

In general I don't have to prove anything regarding days as it is a non essential doctrine. However the OP is clearly espousing that we should only observe Saturday and there is basically no Biblical case for Christians meeting on Sunday's. In light of this I think they need to prove that Saturday is the only day Christians should observe while I just need to show some evidence of Christians meeting on Sunday (which I have).

With all due respect, the reason for taking the issue of Sabbath meetings further, was because I felt the verses you quoted were entirely out of context, and so I wanted to address these. The verse you quoted above is a case in point. I take it by your highlighting of the "Greeks" that you are suggesting this must have been a church meeting, but surely this is just a reference to Greek proselytes in the synagogue who had embraced Judaism such as Cornelius the Centurion & the centurion in Luke 7 who had even built a "synagogue" for the Jews. Notice too that Paul was reasoning with, and persuading them, so this was obviously an outreach to non-Christians, not a church meeting.

I don't deny that in the seminal stages of the Church when they were meeting on a daily basis, that some of those meetings could have been held on a Saturday. However if someone wants to make a case for exclusively Saturday worship, then they best not look in the NT for support because there is not one single example where it explicitly states the church met on the Sabbath.

Anyway, I've ranted on long enough. I appreciate your thoughts and respect your position but we're going to have to disagree on this one.

Keep up the good work (I hope they pay you well for putting up with crazy fundamental folks like myself:lol:).

Cheers
Leigh

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 12:28 PM

Keep up the good work (I hope they pay you well for putting up with crazy fundamental folks like myself:lol:).

Cheers
LeighThat's funny! I thought I was the fundamentalist! :rofl:

BTW, did you know that the same word used to designate 'the congregation' in the wilderness, is the word used to designate 'the church'? My point is simply that no one was starting a NEW religion.

God Bless!

Brother Mark

Apr 29th 2008, 12:31 PM

S2S, you are doing a great job showing the freedom we have to worship in Christ. I wish I could give you a rep on it. Instead, I will have to give you a public at-a-girl. ;)

HisLeast

Apr 29th 2008, 07:29 PM

Am I wrong in wondering why discussions of the sabbath are always incomplete? I've seen many posts over my time here that said sabbath happens on a Saturday and is absolutely mandatory. As the issue is a great source of confusion and pain for me, I went digging...

... and found out "Sabbath" is a lot more than the day of the week we rest. God ordained that the Isrealites take a sabbath of years as well. Every 7th year the fields were to be fallow. The 7th of 7 sabbath years was a Jubilee which required nothing less than the entire redistribution of wealth within the Isrealite community. Property switched hands and family members were redeemed from indenture. The valuation of all economic capital, from animals, to property, to labor contracts... everything was priced according to how far or close it was to a jubilee year.

ALL of that is part of Sabbath, but I never hear anyone saying you have to observe the rest of it, on top of the Saturday requirement.

brakelite

Apr 29th 2008, 09:21 PM

That may be your reality but I choose to believe the word of God and reputable historians. Your man Weigall denies the Trinity and he calls the Sabbath a "pagan day". The church of God during the apostolic age and beyond held her public worship on the same day Jesus Christ arose from the grave – the Lord’s day – the first day of the week – Sunday. This is what true historians write.

That same church had “nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals” which were a shadow of what was to come – and the Christ had come prior to their day - the shadow was no longer needed. Have you ever found the “thus saith the Lord” that Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath or are you still looking? ;)
“The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice..." ~ Phillip Schaff

And upon the first y of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)

Did you read my last post? These quotes are not, for the most part from modern historians, but are comments from contempories of the time. And Weigall is not mentioned.

Like I said in a post elsewhere, the 4th commandment needed only to proclaimed once for it to binding. In the absence of any "thus saith the Lord " to the contrary, then I prefer to believe it still is. Unless of course you agree with the papal church and claim that their church councils have greater authority than the word of God? Or perhaps the majority of opinion has greater authority.
Tell me, if by some chance no-one bothered to mention 'thou shalt not murder' in the NT, would that make murder okay for the Christian?
Nowhere in the NT is there a commandment repeating the 3rd, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain". Is it then alright now for the Christian to use the name of Jesus in the same way the world does? Of course not. Why? Because we love Him. The very same reason so many observe the Sabbath.
As Jesus said, 'if you love Him, you will keep His commandments.'
It baffles me why so many have such angst against the Sabbath. This thread was not actually about the Sabbath originally, but rather the history and origins of Sunday. Something I will be pursuing shortly.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:16 PM

'The church' most definitely met on the Sabbath! They also met on the first day, and the second, and the third.....! Get my point? You don't have to attempt to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the Sabbath, someone else need not try to prove 'the church' didn't meet on the first day. It is quite clear that they met on ALL days!

And the important thing about this fact is that meeting on a Saturday did not mean they "kept the Sabbath" like those bound to the law had to. They, as you say, met on Saturdays as if it was just one of many other days. That's the difference between the two sides of the Sabbath discussion here.

They did not start a NEW religion. They did not suddenly worship the Christian God rather than the Jewish God as some suppose. How are we to bring the Jews to jealousy if they really believe we are worshiping a different God?

The Jews did not know God anymore than false Christians are known by Christ. "I never knew you."

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Was not Christ speaking to Jews when he said they don't know God the Father because they didn't know the son? Therefore this applies even today. Those that do not know Christ do not know his Father, God. This makes one a stranger to God despite natural bloodlines.
In fact Christ is quite direct about this fact:
John 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
The Jews Christ spoke to did not know God, neither Son nor Father. He even calls them liars for claiming they know God.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
So yes, they do worship another God and they deny God the son. It also was a new religion with a new name and a new covenant and a new people.

Now, where we clearly disagree is that the Law as it was intended by the Father was a 'burden'.

Intended, no....became a burden and a curse, yes.

Exodus 20:8 - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Not so burdensome if you look at it. And as a mother of three, wife of one, I sure see no burden in taking a day off! :lol:

Except there were so many rules about the Sabbath, don't do this and do go there...they were the burden. Resting was the easy part. Don't forget all the day-before preparation it took to make the Sabbath happen properly...thats double the work on a Friday when you are the most tired!

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:20 PM

I take it by your highlighting of the "Greeks" that you are suggesting this must have been a church meeting, but surely this is just a reference to Greek proselytes in the synagogue who had embraced Judaism such as Cornelius the Centurion & the centurion in Luke 7 who had even built a "synagogue" for the Jews. Notice too that Paul was reasoning with, and persuading them, so this was obviously an outreach to non-Christians, not a church meeting.

Exactly. Paul only met Jews on Saturdays to teach them what they were wrong about, not that he was compelled and bound to some old covenant law making him be there. He went there because that was the only day to get so many of the Jews in one place since they were still keeping the law concerning the Sabbath. Paul would have also preached about freedom from the Sabbath to them, which I am sure they did not care for anymore than their counterparts today.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:26 PM

As Jesus said, 'if you love Him, you will keep His commandments.'

That's not a correct quote.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

There is a difference between "my commandments" as in the commandments Christ gave us and "his commandments" as in the commandments of God given in the OT, which Jesus kept for us. We are only commanded to keep what Jesus commanded.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:27 PM

Am I wrong in wondering why discussions of the sabbath are always incomplete? I've seen many posts over my time here that said sabbath happens on a Saturday and is absolutely mandatory. As the issue is a great source of confusion and pain for me, I went digging...

... and found out "Sabbath" is a lot more than the day of the week we rest. God ordained that the Isrealites take a sabbath of years as well. Every 7th year the fields were to be fallow. The 7th of 7 sabbath years was a Jubilee which required nothing less than the entire redistribution of wealth within the Isrealite community. Property switched hands and family members were redeemed from indenture. The valuation of all economic capital, from animals, to property, to labor contracts... everything was priced according to how far or close it was to a jubilee year.

ALL of that is part of Sabbath, but I never hear anyone saying you have to observe the rest of it, on top of the Saturday requirement.That's an excellent question. I don't want to give the impression that I intend that anything should be mandated. Remember, we have moved beyond the Law written on cold hard stone being our motivation. The motivation we know have is our desire to walk as He walked; the law written on our soft willing hearts. Okay, with that said. The agricultural expert will tell you that they now know that the soil must rest. The seven year forgiveness concerning bad debt comes from this principle, however, to implement it we would need to live in a theocracy, which we don't. Here's an interesting tidbit, there's nothing in scripture to suggest that Israel actually adhered to these commands. In fact, there are a few things that seem to show that they didn't. Some surmise that the 70 years of the first exile was to cover the 490 years that the people failed to honor God with the 7 year land Sabbath.

The bottom line, though is that unless you are a farmer or in some sort of agricultural field, this really could not apply to you. For those who are in agriculture, it might not be a bad idea to rest your land for a year, every seven. The way it was intended, one could harvest what came up on it's own so the family wouldn't starve. Unfortunately, most farmers these day are so indebted that they would go under. They are wise to at least rotate there land into section or plots to give the land breaks. It makes me wonder how well things would have worked if they had actually honored His commands. :hmm:

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:29 PM

Exactly. Paul only met Jews on Saturdays to teach them what they were wrong about, not that he was compelled and bound to some old covenant law making him be there. He went there because that was the only day to get so many of the Jews in one place since they were still keeping the law concerning the Sabbath. Paul would have also preached about freedom from the Sabbath to them, which I am sure they did not care for anymore than their counterparts today.The scriptures I quoted clearly show that he did not only preach to Jews on the Sabbath. In fact, it specifically speaks of the Greeks who came to the synagogue hear Paul.

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:31 PM

Am I wrong in wondering why discussions of the sabbath are always incomplete? I've seen many posts over my time here that said sabbath happens on a Saturday and is absolutely mandatory. As the issue is a great source of confusion and pain for me, I went digging...

... and found out "Sabbath" is a lot more than the day of the week we rest. God ordained that the Isrealites take a sabbath of years as well. Every 7th year the fields were to be fallow. The 7th of 7 sabbath years was a Jubilee which required nothing less than the entire redistribution of wealth within the Isrealite community. Property switched hands and family members were redeemed from indenture. The valuation of all economic capital, from animals, to property, to labor contracts... everything was priced according to how far or close it was to a jubilee year.

ALL of that is part of Sabbath, but I never hear anyone saying you have to observe the rest of it, on top of the Saturday requirement.

Yes that's true...its a pick and choose issue on the issue of Sabbath keeping even for "Sabbath keepers". Most I've spoken to also have a way to get around ALL OF THE SABBATH RULES AGAINST VARIOUS THINGS. Want to kindle fire on the Sabbath? No problem. Work? Sure, go ahead just don't do it too much. Travel? Anywhere you want! Gather sticks or food? That's fine! :) If it's that lenient then everyone is a Sabbath keeper!

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:33 PM

The scriptures I quoted clearly show that he did not only preach to Jews on the Sabbath. In fact, it specifically speaks of the Greeks who came to the synagogue hear Paul.

That's doesn't change anything...Paul wasn't keeping the Sabbath but was in a place to teach against the errors of the Jews and convert as many as he could.

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:33 PM

Except there were so many rules about the Sabbath, don't do this and do go there...they were the burden. Resting was the easy part. Don't forget all the day-before preparation it took to make the Sabbath happen properly...thats double the work on a Friday when you are the most tired!Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy is not burdensome. No more than do not murder is burdensome. There is not double work on Friday as you suppose. Anyone who cooks knows it's just as easy to cook a double portion as a portion. It's more of a mindset than anything else. I am quite glad that God made the Sabbath FOR me! ;)

God Bless!

losthorizon

Apr 29th 2008, 10:38 PM

Did you read my last post? These quotes are not, for the most part from modern historians, but are comments from contempories of the time. And Weigall is not mentioned.

I did read you post and again – I choose to believe the Bible and reputable historians and they are both unanimous – Christians in the apostolic church were not commanded to “keep the Sabbath” and they met upon the Lord’s Day to worship the risen Lord who arose from the grave on the first day of the week – Sunday – not on the Sabbath.

Like I said in a post elsewhere, the 4th commandment needed only to proclaimed once for it to binding. In the absence of any "thus saith the Lord " to the contrary, then I prefer to believe it still is.
Then the truth of the matter is you have no command from God for Christians today to keep the Sabbath as a salvific matter. That’s what I already knew but needed you to admit so we can all be on the same page. The command to keep the Sabbath holy was never given as a command to any Gentile – it was never commanded to any of the Patriarchs – and it was never commanded to even one Christian. Yet I can find time and again where it is reiterated to the Hebrew people that they must keep that day holy. Why – because it was only given to them and it was nailed to His cross never to be binding upon Christians. These facts do irreparable damage to Sabbatarian dogma. Without a “thus saith the Lord” your argument is dead on arrival.

This thread was not actually about the Sabbath originally, but rather the history and origins of Sunday. Something I will be pursuing shortly.
LOL - will Weigall be your featured speaker? Remember, he thinks the Sabbath is pagan.;)

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:40 PM

That's doesn't change anything...Paul wasn't keeping the Sabbath but was in a place to teach against the errors of the Jews and convert as many as he could.That's your opinion, Naphal. There is nothing in scripture that says that Paul ceased remembering the Sabbath. But alas, I simply intend to share that the Sabbath God made FOR me has been a blessing and NOT a curse. You and anyone else are free to do or not do whatever you wish. Just be accurate as to the 'why' of what you do. Tradition is not necessarily a bad thing but popular opinion does not equate to something being ordained by God. Worship EVERY day! Fellowship ANY day! And I think you might be surprised at how refreshing it is to remember! :D

God Bless!

losthorizon

Apr 29th 2008, 10:40 PM

Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy is not burdensome. No more than do not murder is burdensome. There is not double work on Friday as you suppose. Anyone who cooks knows it's just as easy to cook a double portion as a portion. It's more of a mindset than anything else. I am quite glad that God made the Sabbath FOR me! ;)

God Bless!
Do you also assemble with the saints on the first day of the week to worship Him – the day He arose from the grave?

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:40 PM

Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy is not burdensome. No more than do not murder is burdensome. There is not double work on Friday as you suppose. Anyone who cooks knows it's just as easy to cook a double portion as a portion.

Having been a professional cook a good portion of my life I do know that cooking more is more work. It's not as much as cooking two separate meals but it's more work than one. The Sabbath had some burdens, most of them are excused away today so today's Sabbath is far easier.

losthorizon

Apr 29th 2008, 10:44 PM

Am I wrong in wondering why discussions of the sabbath are always incomplete? I've seen many posts over my time here that said sabbath happens on a Saturday and is absolutely mandatory. As the issue is a great source of confusion and pain for me, I went digging...

... and found out "Sabbath" is a lot more than the day of the week we rest. God ordained that the Isrealites take a sabbath of years as well. Every 7th year the fields were to be fallow. The 7th of 7 sabbath years was a Jubilee which required nothing less than the entire redistribution of wealth within the Isrealite community. Property switched hands and family members were redeemed from indenture. The valuation of all economic capital, from animals, to property, to labor contracts... everything was priced according to how far or close it was to a jubilee year.

ALL of that is part of Sabbath, but I never hear anyone saying you have to observe the rest of it, on top of the Saturday requirement.
That’s because none of the Old Testament is binding on Christians today… “Let no man judge you, therefore, in matters of food and drink, or in such a matter as a festival, new moon, or sabbath, which represent only a shadow…” :)

Studyin'2Show

Apr 29th 2008, 10:48 PM

Having been a profession cook a good portion of my life I do know that cooking more is more work. It's not as much as cooking two separate meals but it's more work than one. The Sabbath had some burdens, most of them are excused away today so today's Sabbath is far easier.Having had a household of nine for the last three years I know that putting a bit more in the pot is no trouble. ;) I think I've shared my view sufficiently for anyone who reads this thread. I don't see anything edifying in continuing. Usually, I just sit back and read opinions until the Spirit moves me to respond. Thank you all for a spirited discussion that has thus far stayed away from much of the negative personal stuff that tends to get into this at times.

God Bless!

Naphal

Apr 29th 2008, 10:48 PM

That's your opinion, Naphal. There is nothing in scripture that says that Paul ceased remembering the Sabbath.

Remembering it and keeping it according to all it's various rules are two different things. I "remember" the Sabbath. There is no evidence Paul "kept the Sabbath" and if we go by his writings on it, we have to conclude he followed his own writings and did not keep it. If he did, he would have been a hypocrite.

But alas, I simply intend to share that the Sabbath God made FOR me has been a blessing and NOT a curse.

I understand. Another poster here believes obedience to the law is a blessing. To each there own.

You and anyone else are free to do or not do whatever you wish. Just be accurate as to the 'why' of what you do. Tradition is not necessarily a bad thing but popular opinion does not equate to something being ordained by God.

Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. It's entirely based on scripture, which is why the majority refused it from the beginning of Christianity. I believe you are free to do differently as you choose.

Worship EVERY day! Fellowship ANY day! And I think you might be surprised at how refreshing it is to remember! :D

No one has forgotten anything! Why would you end with that after being so gracious?

brakelite

Apr 30th 2008, 07:34 AM

I did read you post and again – I choose to believe the Bible and reputable historians and they are both unanimous – Christians in the apostolic church were not commanded to “keep the Sabbath” and they met upon the Lord’s Day to worship the risen Lord who arose from the grave on the first day of the week – Sunday – not on the Sabbath.
I am sure they did meet on the first day of the week. But there is not one shred of evidence that the first day was special in any way.

Then the truth of the matter is you have no command from God for Christians today to keep the Sabbath as a salvific matter. That’s what I already knew but needed you to admit so we can all be on the same page. The command to keep the Sabbath holy was never given as a command to any Gentile – it was never commanded to any of the Patriarchs – and it was never commanded to even one Christian. Yet I can find time and again where it is reiterated to the Hebrew people that they must keep that day holy. Why – because it was only given to them and it was nailed to His cross never to be binding upon Christians. These facts do irreparable damage to Sabbatarian dogma. Without a “thus saith the Lord” your argument is dead on arrival.

Then by the same reasoning only Jews could be found guilty of theft because until the time of Jesus only they recieved the commandment.

brakelite

Apr 30th 2008, 11:01 AM

Let us be honest here, and admit that for the majority of Christians today, the reason they honor Sunday as a day for corporate worship is not because they have studied the Scriptures and subsequently obeyed them, but rather because 'most everyone else is doing it'. For some, it may be because their parents and grandparents did so, for others, they may not be aware of any viable alternatives.
My hope for this thread was to bring an objective look at the origins of Sunday worship, and how it became established in the Church.
It may surprise many but there is only one mention in the entire NT of a possible organised worship meeting on the first day of the week(Sunday),apart from the daily ad hoc gatherings in the temple. (Acts 2:46)
Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

First thing to notice here is that the disciples are said to have come together to break bread. In Acts 2 we read:
Ac 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Eating their meat can refer only to a meal, and certainly not to the Lord's supper as some would proffer as evidence of a worship meeting. So the breaking of bread referred to in Acts 20 may very well also be a simple meal that the disciples decided to share, as the time was a special occasion, being the farewell of Paul, who may by his own testimony, be never seen again. We do this in our church today, as I am sure you all do; a farewell get-together for a pastor or friend etc.
The second thing to notice is that it occured at night. The custom in those days was to measure days from 'even to even'. Thus this night meeting was the evening of the first day of the week. That is, Saturday night. As the custom was for Paul and the other disciples to worship on the Sabbath together, this may have been a continuation of their customary Sabbath meeting.
The third thing to note is the fact that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, made no mention of any of the content of the sermon, but made the healing of Eutychus as the focal point of the story. It could be suggested, with good reason, that the only reason Luke told this story was because of the miracle of the boy's healing.
The 'morrow', as mentioned in the text, is Sunday morning. Paul was to depart on Sunday morning. As it happens, that departure entailed a walk of some 20 miles to the nearest port where he was to meet with others, including Luke, and from where they were to set sail. The walk, and the sailing,was hardly the activity of an evangelist who was, as some contend, observing Sunday as a day of rest and reserved for church meetings and worship.
This incident is the sole occasion for any special meeting for the disciples on the first day of the week. And it was Saturday night. Hardly incontrovertible
evidence for those who maintain that Sunday originated in the NT.

Brother Mark

Apr 30th 2008, 01:04 PM

The NT clearly teaches in so many scriptures that people can gather together for worship as often as they wish, including on Sunday if they so desire.

losthorizon

May 1st 2008, 02:59 AM

I am sure they did meet on the first day of the week. But there is not one shred of evidence that the first day was special in any way.

Lol - are you for real? In your worldview what constitutes “one shred of evidence”? Does “historical evidence” mean anything at all to you? Do you deny those disciples who were taught the gospel of Christ at the feet of the apostles met for public worship on the first day of the week and not on the seventh day of the week? Did Jesus arise from the grave on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)? Was that a "special day" in your theology? Would you agree with me that Philip Schaff was a first-class historian of the Christian faith? Do you think he understood from his extensive research in his 7000 page eight-volume work on church history that the early church did in fact consider the first day of the week to be very special day in the public worship of God? ;)

"Philip Schaff wrote one of the finest histories of the church available. His eight-volume work, which covers Christian history from the apostles to the Swiss Reformation, incorporates discussion of ideas and ideals throughout the history of the church with the requisite facts and figures for each period of history." ~ Editorial Reviews, Amazon.com
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” (emphasis mine – LH)~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

losthorizon

May 1st 2008, 03:20 AM

...The 'morrow', as mentioned in the text, is Sunday morning. Paul was to depart on Sunday morning. As it happens, that departure entailed a walk of some 20 miles to the nearest port where he was to meet with others, including Luke, and from where they were to set sail. The walk, and the sailing,was hardly the activity of an evangelist who was, as some contend, observing Sunday as a day of rest and reserved for church meetings and worship.
Just to correct another of the many Sabbatarian misunderstandings of the Lord’s Day – it is not the “Christian Sabbath” - a “first-day Sabbath” is an oxymoron. It is in fact a special day of public celebration for all Christians to keep in memory the risen Christ who arose on the first day of the week. Christians are not bound to rigid Sabbath-keeping laws under the Law of Christ. There never have been “travel restrictions” on those who travel to assemble with the saints on Sunday - the day He arose from the dead.
"We assemble in common on Sunday [the Lord's day], because this is the first day, on which God created the world and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples." ~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 140)

brakelite

May 1st 2008, 07:35 AM

Lol - are you for real? In your worldview what constitutes “one shred of evidence”? Does “historical evidence” mean anything at all to you?

"Thus we learn from Socrates (H.E., vi.c.8) that in his time public worship was held in the churches of Constantinople on both days.... The view that the Christian's Lord's day or Sunday is but the Christian Sabbath deliberately transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week does not indeed find categorical expression till a much later period.... The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in A.D. 321, enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die Solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour...The Council of Laodicea (363) ... forbids Christians from judaizing and resting on the Sabbath day, preferring the Lord's day, and so far as possible resting as Christians."-Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1899 Edition, Vol. XXIII, page 654.

"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of Sunday is known to have been ordained is the sabbatical edict of Constantine, A.D. 32I." *Chambers' Encyclopedia, Article "Sunday."

"Sunday (Dies Solis, of the Roman calendar, 'day of the sun,' because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship. The 'sun' of Latin adoration they interpreted as the 'Sun of Righteousness.' . . . No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined."-SCHAFF HERZOG, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1891 Edition, Vol. IV, Art. "Sunday."

Do you deny those disciples who were taught the gospel of Christ at the feet of the apostles met for public worship on the first day of the week and not on the seventh day of the week? Did Jesus arise from the grave on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)? Was that a "special day" in your theology? Would you agree with me that Philip Schaff was a first-class historian of the Christian faith? Do you think he understood from his extensive research in his 7000 page eight-volume work on church history that the early church did in fact consider the first day of the week to be very special day in the public worship of God? ;)

"Philip Schaff wrote one of the finest histories of the church available. His eight-volume work, which covers Christian history from the apostles to the Swiss Reformation, incorporates discussion of ideas and ideals throughout the history of the church with the requisite facts and figures for each period of history." ~ Editorial Reviews, Amazon.com
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” (emphasis mine – LH)~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

"The notion of a formal substitution by apostolic authority of the Lord's day [meaning Sunday] for the Jewish Sabbath [or the first for the seventh day]...and the transference to it, perhaps in a spiritualized form, of the sabbatical obligation established by the promulgation of the fourth commandment, has no basis whatever, either in Holy Scripture or in Christian antiquity." - SIR WILLIAM SMITH AND SAMUEL CHEETHAM, "A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities," Vol. 11, page 182, Article "Sabbath."

The above dictionary is a work of equal standing as the one you quote from. Schaff working no doubt from a Christian subday-keeping perspective was always likely to find the appropriate evidence to support his practice. Smith was not a practicing Christian though he obtained a excellent education in the classics, authored a number of works and was well known for his objectivity and scholarship. He would appear to disagree with Schaff. Oh well, no-ones infallible.

brakelite

May 1st 2008, 07:40 AM

I have no argument with that whatsoever. My thread is intended to show that the only source for the substitution of the 7th day for the first as an official corporate day of worship is in church councils and tradition, not in NT teaching or practice.

brakelite

May 1st 2008, 08:11 AM

I have no argument with you there, after all, I was a Christian for many years and knew only Sunday as a day for church assembly. And for sure, there was no way I reverenced the day in any way close to how I reverence the Sabbath.
None of this however detracts from the fact that the aforementioned verses from Acts 20 in no way can be used as a scriptural foundation for the belief that the early church favored the first day as opposed to the 7th.

losthorizon

May 1st 2008, 12:51 PM

I have no argument with that whatsoever. My thread is intended to show that the only source for the substitution of the 7th day for the first as an official corporate day of worship is in church councils and tradition, not in NT teaching or practice.
No one ever changed the Sabbath day to SUNDAY

The Sabbath commemorated a finished creation with rest. The first day commemorates a finished redemption and a new work.

The Sabbath commemorates Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery and God resting on the 7th day. The first day commemorates Christ’s resurrection, victory over death and eternal punishment . It gives hope that all who believe will also be resurrected from the dead.

The Sabbath is a day of rest and quiet. The first day is a day of worship and praise. Sabbath means rest, not Saturday! There were other Sabbaths given to Israel on other days. The Sabbath was made for man to rest, God was telling Israel to keep the rest, their focus was not a day.

Christians met in houses for their assemblies Philemon 2, Romans 16:5, Col.4:15. According to the Sabbatarian's they were to assemble together in the temple so they are breaking the Sabbath not keeping it.

The New Testament, principle is given in Heb.10:24-25: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." If one does not want to assemble with the rest of the believers during a service certainly reveals a spiritual anemia. The day of the week to assemble is of the church’s choice whether it be Monday, Wednesday or Saturday. Many churches today have Saturday services as well as Sunday. The New Testament has no legislation for which day we are to assemble. History shows the early church chose Sunday because of its significance, not because they hated the Sabbath. Almost all the church the first 10 years were Jews they certainly knew the difference. How can a believing church meet in an unbelieving Synagogue. To meet together in worship is beneficial to oneself and others. It stirs up others to hear what God is doing in each others life. This verse of Hebrews tells us to encourage each other by being present.

1 Cor. 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come". To give has always been a means of worship. Paul sets the rule telling them as they gather together to take up an offering. This is not a tithe as in the O T. but a principle of as the Lord has prospered you, ( giving cheerfully not out of obligation) there is an absence of legalism that one would find under the law. Notice he says that he has instructed the church’s in Galatia the same as the Corinthians. This certainly indicates this was not an isolated command but a common practice during even the apostles time to gather on Sunday.

Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." When to come together was an option of choice not obligation. Obviously this was decided upon and they were already carrying it out by the apostles. To break bread consisted of what is called a love feast, eating a meal and taking communion which is to be done in an assembly. Paul was speaking til midnight. The Jewish first day began on sundown Saturday so this took place Saturday night Through the first day, after the Sabbath.

The truth is 9 of the commandments Ex.20:3-4 are repeated and incorporated in the New Testament epistles but the 4th one is not, why?

The 3rd commandment of reverencing his name not to take it in vain (4 times ) Ex.20:7 is also repeated in the New Testament Mt.5:33; James 5:12.
The 4th commandment- ? Where do the apostles teach to keep the Sabbath? Its missing even for the Gentiles who had no concept of the Jewish laws would need to be instructed.

The 5th commandment- to respect your parents is also repeated (6 times) Mt.15:4-9: Eph.6:1-3 and Rom.13:1-7.

The 6th commandment- of forbidding murder Ex.20:13 is in the New Testament (4 times). Rom.13:9; Mt.19:18 and the true intent is explained in Mt.5:21-22

Isn’t it amazing the one law that the legalists use to bully everyone around to show their disobedience is not found specifically in the New Testament. Why? Not because its practice was self evident as some claim! Its just as self evident not to murder. This was law before the 10 commandments but it is repeated often. The answer is in the fact the Sabbath is not suppose to be there! Not once in the New Testament is breaking the Sabbath called a sin or do we find anyone punished for it. Its ceremonial not moral because the very things forbidden for that day are allowed on all others , this would not be so if it was a moral law.

While Sabbatarian's state "there is no command to worship on Sunday" They can't produce a single command that the Church was to assemble on the Sabbath for worship? If there is one in the New Testament epistles (the teachings for the Church), please bring it to our attention and we will do it. Instead we find the very opposite…Let Us Reason Ministries

HisLeast

May 1st 2008, 02:36 PM

And just to throw my wrench in again...

Sabbath isn't just one day out of the week. Its a year out of years (the 7th year), and a year out of a year^2 (the jubilee year after 49 years). The sabbath DAY is just the most frequent occurence of sabbath rest, but to keeping the sabbath is a means of running an entire society and economy. Its about redemption of indentured labor, redistribution of wealth, and reuniting of families.

If you're only doing saturday-as-a-day-of-rest, you're not keeping the sabbath. At least thats how the Torah reads to me. Am I missing something?

Studyin'2Show

May 1st 2008, 03:38 PM

And just to throw my wrench in again...

Sabbath isn't just one day out of the week. Its a year out of years (the 7th year), and a year out of a year^2 (the jubilee year after 49 years). The sabbath DAY is just the most frequent occurence of sabbath rest, but to keeping the sabbath is a means of running an entire society and economy. Its about redemption of indentured labor, redistribution of wealth, and reuniting of families.

If you're only doing saturday-as-a-day-of-rest, you're not keeping the sabbath. At least thats how the Torah reads to me. Am I missing something?I think you are. I can't speak for others but all those I know personally who, like me, remember the Sabbath, do not do so in an attempt fulfill some sort of requirement or obligation. The actual commandment (not subsequent ordinances) is simply referring to the seventh day.

Exodus 20:8-11
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

You see. The commandment that was one of the ten that were etched into the stone tablets by the finger of God, does not mention the other regulatory Sabbaths. Within the Ten commandments that are on the tablets that were placed within the Ark of the Covenant which is a symbol of our hearts, only mentions the seventh day of the week in that context. When Jeremiah 31 speaks of the new covenant where these things will be written in our hearts, I see the picture God showed us with the Ark. No longer are God's people motivated by obligation because of what is written on cold, hard stone. Now, we should be motivated by what He has written on our soft, willing hearts. Our motivation is now desire rather than obligation. Yeshua did speak of His Father's commands, of which I see all ten, but He went deeper speaking of the heart. In Matthew chapter 5 He speaks of how everything begins in the heart, which as I said, is our desire. It is my desire (my heart) that motivates me to honor the 4th commandment as I honor the other nine. ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 1st 2008, 11:23 PM

I think you are. I can't speak for others but all those I know personally who, like me, remember the Sabbath, do not do so in an attempt fulfill some sort of requirement or obligation. The actual commandment (not subsequent ordinances) is simply referring to the seventh day.

Exodus 20:8-11
8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

You see. The commandment that was one of the ten that were etched into the stone tablets by the finger of God, does not mention the other regulatory Sabbaths. Within the Ten commandments that are on the tablets that were placed within the Ark of the Covenant which is a symbol of our hearts, only mentions the seventh day of the week in that context. When Jeremiah 31 speaks of the new covenant where these things will be written in our hearts, I see the picture God showed us with the Ark. No longer are God's people motivated by obligation because of what is written on cold, hard stone. Now, we should be motivated by what He has written on our soft, willing hearts. Our motivation is now desire rather than obligation. Yeshua did speak of His Father's commands, of which I see all ten, but He went deeper speaking of the heart. In Matthew chapter 5 He speaks of how everything begins in the heart, which as I said, is our desire. It is my desire (my heart) that motivates me to honor the 4th commandment as I honor the other nine. ;)

God Bless!

Do you think that only the 10 commandments are still binding? That's what I believe but I am wondering if that is where you stand as well.

Those things are in Christ heart, and when Christ is placed in us, they are then in us as well.

Studyin'2Show

May 1st 2008, 11:42 PM

Do you think that only the 10 commandments are still binding? That's what I believe but I am wondering if that is where you stand as well.

Those things are in Christ heart, and when Christ is placed in us, they are then in us as well.The 'binding' is the part I think Paul was saying has changed with maturity. We have come of age in the LORD and just as I don't have to mandate that my 18 yr old daughter bathe and brush her teeth anymore, God no longer has to mandate that I follow His commandments. Though I still have to MAKE my 10 yr old son bathe and brush his teeth, my daughter has matured and has learned that the things I MADE her do at one time, are good for her. So she now does those things freely because she wants to do them. So, I wouldn't say binding but I am certain that those are things that came straight from God FOR man. That they are included inside the Ark which can be seen as the 'heart' of the Tabernacle which is a symbol of the body, I think speaks volumes. ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 1st 2008, 11:58 PM

The 'binding' is the part I think Paul was saying has changed with maturity. We have come of age in the LORD and just as I don't have to mandate that my 18 yr old daughter bathe and brush her teeth anymore, God no longer has to mandate that I follow His commandments. Though I still have to MAKE my 10 yr old son bathe and brush his teeth, my daughter has matured and has learned that the things I MADE her do at one time, are good for her. So she now does those things freely because she wants to do them. So, I wouldn't say binding but I am certain that those are things that came straight from God FOR man. That they are included inside the Ark which can be seen as the 'heart' of the Tabernacle which is a symbol of the body, I think speaks volumes. ;)

God Bless!

I get that about the 10 commandments. I was wondering about the rest of the commandments. Just so you know, I am not looking for a long discussion, just curious as to where you stand. That's all. I read the post and wondered if you were suggesting that the regulations of the sabbaths were not for us, then where does the line get drawn? At the food laws too? Or the priestly laws? You see what I am getting at. I was wondering why hold to some and not the others. I understand why one would hold to the food laws for health reasons or because one saw them as guidelines provided by God for the well being of man. Anyway, the root of the question is to understand why the other sabbaths don't have to be honored while other laws do. Just wondering what your perspective is.

For me, I draw the line that the regulations are everything but the 10. The 10 went in the ark and everything else was outside the ark. But that's just me. And then, I see the Sabbath as resting from all my labor. So I know we are different in some things, but I think we have a ton more in common.

Studyin'2Show

May 2nd 2008, 12:30 AM

I guess I don't really have a line. :hmm: I've never really thought about it. I just follow His lead. I haven't come into any of the things I do arbitrarily or even because someone told me to. I got saved at 31 and just fell in love with reading the Bible. He leads, I follow. And just so you know, He hasn't led me to like sacrifice a lamb or anything. :D And also, I test things with the word because there are other spirits attempting to deceive us. I know that He will not lead me to do anything that goes AGAINST His word.

God Bless!

brakelite

May 2nd 2008, 09:40 AM

No one ever changed the Sabbath day to SUNDAY

The Sabbath commemorated a finished creation with rest. The first day commemorates a finished redemption and a new work.

The Sabbath commemorates Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery and God resting on the 7th day. The first day commemorates Christ’s resurrection, victory over death and eternal punishment . It gives hope that all who believe will also be resurrected from the dead.
The only institution that recognises the above is baptism.

The Sabbath is a day of rest and quiet. The first day is a day of worship and praise. Sabbath means rest, not Saturday! There were other Sabbaths given to Israel on other days. The Sabbath was made for man to rest, God was telling Israel to keep the rest, their focus was not a day.
Wrong, on most counts. The Sabbath was established to foster the relationship between God and His created subjects. Any relationship with God must include worship. If there is any single reason why God is worthy of our worship, it is because He created us. That is likely the reason He said "remember..."
It was not the rest that God was focusing on, it was the day. It is the day that He sanctified. It is the day that is holy. It is the day that He blessed. It is the day that He commanded that it be set apart.

Christians met in houses for their assemblies Philemon 2, Romans 16:5, Col.4:15. According to the Sabbatarian's they were to assemble together in the temple so they are breaking the Sabbath not keeping it.
:confused Now that is really stretching it.:)

The New Testament, principle is given in Heb.10:24-25: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." If one does not want to assemble with the rest of the believers during a service certainly reveals a spiritual anemia. The day of the week to assemble is of the church’s choice whether it be Monday, Wednesday or Saturday. Many churches today have Saturday services as well as Sunday.
I have no problem with that, however,
Lu 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The New Testament has no legislation for which day we are to assemble. History shows the early church chose Sunday because of its significance,....
The early church, yes. But not the apostolic church.

....not because they hated the Sabbath.
Actually, there is much historical evidence that throughout the ages, the Sabbath has been the recipient of more hatred and invective than any other religious institution. And it continues today. Persecution against Sabbath keepers by the papal church and even the early colonial churches of America is a very well established historical fact. (Sunday blue laws).

1 Cor. 16:1-2: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come". To give has always been a means of worship. Paul sets the rule telling them as they gather together....
Losthorizon, you are pushing it here. There is no indication in the text that they were gathered together.
The following is an excerpt from a publication by a Catholic journal early last century.
Presuming that the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour's life and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us.

The followers of the Master met "every Sabbath" to hear the word of God; the Scriptures were read "every Sabbath day." "And Paul, as his manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, interposing the same of the Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Acts 18:4. What more absurd conclusion that to infer that reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation, and preaching, which formed the routine duties of every Saturday, as had been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a request to take up a collection on another day of the week?

In order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under consideration, it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles and holy women on Good Friday before sundown. They brought spices and ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath "holy to the Lord" had passed, and then took steps on Sunday morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred body of Jesus.

Why, may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the work of embalming on Saturday? -- Because they knew well that the embalming of the sacred body of their Master would interfere with the strict observance of the Sabbath, the keeping of which was paramount; and until it can be shown that the Sabbath day immediately preceding the Sunday of our text had not been kept (which would be false, inasmuch as every Sabbath had been kept), the request of St. Paul to make the collection on Sunday remains to be classified with the work of the embalming of Christ's body, which could not be effected on the Sabbath, and was consequently deferred to the next convenient day; viz., Sunday, or the first day of the week.

...to take up an offering. This is not a tithe as in the O T. but a principle of as the Lord has prospered you, ( giving cheerfully not out of obligation) there is an absence of legalism that one would find under the law. Notice he says that he has instructed the church’s in Galatia the same as the Corinthians. This certainly indicates this was not an isolated command but a common practice during even the apostles time to gather on Sunday.
Actually, the context is in the form of an offering to help needy saints in Jerusalem. It was not necessarily in the form of money either, but in goods to relieve the famine. This, as the above quote clearly points out, would have been inappropriate on a day of worship, so they deferred it till they were at home the next day.

Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." When to come together was an option of choice not obligation. Obviously this was decided upon and they were already carrying it out by the apostles. To break bread consisted of what is called a love feast, eating a meal and taking communion which is to be done in an assembly. Paul was speaking til midnight. The Jewish first day began on sundown Saturday so this took place Saturday night Through the first day, after the Sabbath.
One Saturday night meeting which is mentioned by Luke because of the miracle that took place then is hardly evidence that the entire apostolic assembly had decided to cast aside 15oo years of custom in favor of a day that is not blessed, not sanctified, not holy.

The truth is 9 of the commandments Ex.20:3-4 are repeated and incorporated in the New Testament epistles but the 4th one is not, why?

The 4th commandment- ? Where do the apostles teach to keep the Sabbath? Its missing even for the Gentiles who had no concept of the Jewish laws would need to be instructed.
Ac 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Ac 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest (a keeping of Sabbath: margin) to the people of God.

Isn’t it amazing the one law that the legalists use to bully everyone around to show their disobedience is not found specifically in the New Testament.

Sabbath keepers are bullies????:lol:

Allow me to quote some sunday keepers in your very own community and we will see who are the bullies.

We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no such thing as religious neutrality...Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
(Christian author Gary North, quoted in 'The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America.)
And what of the religious liberty of sabbath keepers?

"If we will not be constrained from within by the power of God, we must be constrained from without by the power of the state, acting as God's agent.
(Columnist Cal Thomas, Harpers Magazine March 1995)

"Every church historian worth his tenure knows that Baptists from their earliest inception called for the institutional separation of church and state....then why the present discrepancy---the radical break with this historical distinction of the Baptist heritage?" He then lists various possibilities, including that "too many listened too long to those with a 'takeover mentality', whose only answer appears to be rooted not in the gospel, but in 'law' and the force of the law."
Baptist Professor William Estep.

Sabbath keeping bullies? Baptists were, in England, the object of much hatred and bigotry. They were fined, imprisoned, and martyred for their faith. A most noble heritage. In most early American coloniea this was repeated. They were beaten, exiled, robbed, fined, and jailed, most often for refusal to obtain a licence to preach,refusal to attend established churches,or refusal to pay taxes to established religion. The Baptists for decades after were at the forefront of advocacy for the separation of church and state. Today, for the precise same reason, Sabbath keepers are prominent among those who regularly appear before senate committees etc to protest the erosion of the constitution which guarantees that separation.
One needn't have too much of a vivid imagination to believe what the result will be for Sabbath keepers and those with no religious affiliation should those sunday blue laws, which still exist in at least 30 of your states, be resurrected to life. A goal of the Lord's Day Alliance, an affiliation of several dozen of mainline denominations in America.
I believe in religious freedom. Particularly when it comes to how we worship, when we worship, and who we worship, is a matter of conscience and should never be a matter for the state to decide. Alas, however, Revelation 13 shows that will not be the case. Who will be the bullies in that scenario? The minority? I think not.

losthorizon

May 3rd 2008, 12:38 AM

Losthorizon, you are pushing it here. There is no indication in the text that they were gathered together.

Of course they were gathered together on Sunday...that was a special day of celebration by Christians from the beginning and it was the day they participated in the Lord's Supper - "This do in Rememberance of Me"
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7 (KJV)Why were Christians never “ordered” by inspired writers to “lay aside” of their means on the "seventh day of the week”? The context gives the meaning of “each and every first day of the week”. Why the Lord’s day? What day of the week was Jesus raised from the dead by the Father - was it Sunday? Why were the doors of the Lord's church opened by the apostles on the day of Pentecost – the "first day of the week"? Why not on the Sabbath? Why are Christians NEVER commanded to "keep" the Sabbath?

Sabbath keepers are bullies????
There is a well known Sabbatarian sect who make the fallacious claim that “Sunday-keeping” is ‘the mark of the beast.' Do you agree with that statement or denounce it for what it is - a lie?
“The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” ~ Philip Schaff

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 01:28 AM

There is no mark of the beast yet, as the image has yet to be formed. Whether that particular 'Sabbitarian sect' is right or not, will depend on how history plays itself out. Somehow, I don't think we will have too long to wait to find out.
Funny how you accuse Sabbath keepers of being bullies, and ignore historical evidence of persecution against Sabbath keepers by Sunday churches. Inconvenient to your argument?
And your oft repeating of Acts 20:7 doesn't make it any more plausible as an affirmation of Sunday sacredness now, as when you quoted it the first time.

Nor does your repeated quoting of Schaff render me any more amenable to your view, especially considering your ignoring of like historians who espouse the opposite.

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches they represent, the voice of the majority - not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accaepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in it's support.
The Great Controversy
E G White.

Yours views on the aforementioned writer aside, what she says here is true. And no-one has yet offered a 'thus saith the Lord' in support of discarding the Sabbath as a day of worship and rest.
The majority, as far as I can gauge, has always got it wrong. Remember Noah's flood? Remember the parable of the wide gate and the narrow? It seems to me that the only real support for the promotion of Sunday as an official day of worship instead of the Sabbath comes from the fact the majority agree with it. For that reason alone I would treat that particular
doctrine with a respectable amount of suspicion.

losthorizon

May 3rd 2008, 02:09 AM

There is no mark of the beast yet, as the image has yet to be formed. Whether that particular 'Sabbitarian sect' is right or not, will depend on how history plays itself out.

So you refuse to denounce that sects dogma for what it is? :hmm:

Nor does your repeated quoting of Schaff render me any more amenable to your view, especially considering your ignoring of like historians who espouse the opposite.
But you have never disproved his scholarship and the historical reality it represents. All you can drag up to quote is your “scholar” who denounces both the Sabbath and the Trinity as “pagan” and now you must quote from the discombobulated writings of EG White. How sad but understandable considering you delemma.;)

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 02:18 AM

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches they represent, the voice of the majority - not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accaepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in it's support.
The Great Controversy
E G White.

Despite being a false prophetess IMO, she does make a valid point here. I am going to check the NT and see if there is a "Thus saith the Lord" concerning keeping the Saturday Sabbath. I'll be back to let you know what I found.

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 03:35 AM

So you refuse to denounce that sects dogma for what it is? :hmm:

But you have never disproved his scholarship and the historical reality it represents. All you can drag up to quote is your “scholar” who denounces both the Sabbath and the Trinity as “pagan” and now you must quote from the discombobulated writings of EG White. How sad but understandable considering you delemma.;)

"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." "The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX,p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." "Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

"It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west...For in the Church of Millaine (Milan);...it seems the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme... Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme (Judaism); but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus (Jesus) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." "History of the Sabbath" (original spelling retained), Part 2, par. 5, pp.73, 74. London: 1636. Dr. Heylyn.

I have posted other quotes from other historians previously. Though you claim that I have not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt,and accept that you have perhaps missed them. The alternative is unthinkable.

The Following courtesy S Wohlberg
Gentiles keep the Sabbath in Antioch:
In Antioch, Paul "went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." Acts 13:14. Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism worshipped there (verses 16 and 26). After preaching the gospel, "the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." Verse 42. These Gentiles were already Sabbath-keepers (because they were converts to Judaism), and after they received Jesus Christ they wanted to hear more “the next Sabbath.” Paul didn’t say, “Sunday is now the Lord's Day!” Instead, "speaking to them, [he] persuaded them to continue in the grace of God." Verse 43. These Sabbath-keeping Gentiles were now "in the grace of God" as believers in Jesus Christ. Paul told them to "continue" in this grace, which they did all week. Then "the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Verse 44. That Sabbath day, Paul preached only “the word of God,” not man’s traditions. Obviously, the Sabbath had not been changed, and those Gentiles in Antioch – who were now believers in Jesus Christ – were keeping it.

The Sabbath and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15):
A Jerusalem council led by the apostles was organized to discuss "this question ... this matter" of "circumcision" and "the law of Moses." Acts 15:1, 2, 5. The Sabbath itself was not debated or even discussed. The Church decided that the Gentiles were "saved ... through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" (verse 11) and thus they did not need to be circumcised. Yet to avoid offending the Jews, they were given certain restrictions. Verses 19, 20. At this early date in Church history, believing Gentiles were still worshiping with the Jews in their synagogues "every Sabbath day." Verse 21. Thus, verse 21 proves that the “Sabbath day” was not abrogated by the Jerusalem Council. Rather, it was reiterated without dissent as the biblical day of worship for both Jews and Gentiles.

A Sabbath-keeping church begins in Philippi:
Luke and Paul delivered "the decrees" of the Jerusalem Council and entered Greece to "preach the gospel." Acts 16:4, 9, 10. In Philippi, Luke wrote that "on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side." Acts 16:13. There was no synagogue there, but it was still the Sabbath. A Gentile named Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened ... was baptized, and her household" (16:14, 15). This was the beginning of the New Testament Sabbath-keeping church of Jesus Christ in Philippi. “The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians” was written to this church.

A Sabbath-keeping church begins in Thessalonica:
Paul entered a synagogue in Thessalonica and for “three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead." Acts 17:1-3. Thus Paul preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the Sabbath day. He did not mention Sunday. Many "devout Greeks" believed. Verse 4. This was the beginning of the New Testament Sabbath-keeping church of Jesus in Thessalonica. “The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians,” and “The Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians,” were penned to this church.

A Sabbath-keeping church begins in Corinth:
Then Paul "came to Corinth” and “reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:1, 4. "He continued a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." Verse 11. Again, Paul didn’t preach the traditions of men, but only "the word of God." "Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized," including "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue" (vs. 8). Crispus was a Sabbath-keeper who became a leader (see 1 Corinthians 1:14) in the New Testament Sabbath?keeping church of Jesus Christ in Corinth. “The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians” and “The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians” were written to this church.

A Sabbath-keeping church begins in Ephesus:
Paul "came to Ephesus" and found "certain disciples." Acts 19:1. As usual, "he went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." Verse 8. This was obviously on the Sabbath days, as in Antioch, Corinth and Thessalonica. Many rejected his preaching, so Paul finally "separated the disciples." Verse 9. He continued there "by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." Verse 10. Those who received the Lord became the nucleus of the New Testament Sabbath-keeping church of Jesus Christ in Ephesus. “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians” was written to this church.

Paul was NEVER accused of Sabbath-breaking by Jews: Eventually, Paul was arrested in the Temple in Jerusalem. Acts 21. At his trial before the Sanhedrin, even the Pharisees admitted, "we find no evil in this man." Acts 23:9. Before Felix, Paul testified, "so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." Acts 24:14. Before Festus he declared, "to the Jews have I done no wrong." Acts 25:10. Before Agrippa, "I continue to this day ... saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come." Acts 26:22. “The prophets and Moses” did not predict that "Sunday-keeping should come." Finally, Paul spoke to the Jews in Rome, "persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." Acts 28:23. During all of his trials, the Jews never once accused Paul of breaking the Sabbath. Why not? Because he never did!

The New Testament churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth
and Ephesus were all Sabbath-keeping churches composed of Jews
and Gentiles who believed in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul planted all of these churches by preaching only
"the word of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:10.

Jesus Christ never mentioned Sunday.

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 04:20 AM

Despite being a false prophetess IMO, she does make a valid point here. I am going to check the NT and see if there is a "Thus saith the Lord" concerning keeping the Saturday Sabbath. I'll be back to let you know what I found.

:):rofl: You are a crack up Naphal, you really are.
For centuries people have been going to the NT to find a "thus saith the Lord" in support for a change in the sacred and holy nature of the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbath as designated in the heart of the Ten Commandments, and all that they could find, alas, were these:

Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Interesting that all those characteristics of the law are also characteristics of God. Yet we hear and see printed upon the pages of these forums the interminable and abominable charge that those who desire to keep all of that law by the grace and power of God are seeking to keep a law described as a 'burden', a 'beggarly element' , a 'bondage'. They don't see that by casting aspersions upon the nature and character of the law, they are doing the same to the Lawgiver.
They need to take far more care for they are standing on holy ground.

I have a question. You claim that The Ten Commandments were a part of the law that was nailed to the cross. You maintain that moral law however still stands on the basis of revelation in Pauls letters for example, such as
Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So what was the status of the Ten Commandments between the time that it was nailed to the cross, and the time Paul wrote those letters?

losthorizon

May 3rd 2008, 04:21 AM

The Following courtesy S Wohlberg

Lol – who is “S Wohlberg” your local SDA “scholar”? Does he/she have a first name or are you trying to keep him/her incognito for obvious reasons? Philip Schaff is a world recognized scholar and his work on the Christian church is recognized as the “gold standard” on that subject and I will have to go with his work. Give me a bio on your new man – I hope he doesn’t turn out to be as embarrassing as the last one.;)

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 04:36 AM

:):rofl: You are a crack up Naphal, you really are.
For centuries people have been going to the NT to find a "thus saith the Lord" in support for a change in the sacred and holy nature of the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbath as designated in the heart of the Ten Commandments, and all that they could find, alas, were these:

As you confirmed, there was no commandment in the NT. I didn't think there was but I did want to check just in case. I know that Ellen White meant her words to be used against Sunday worship but it is a double edged sword that also works against her own position.

I have a question. You claim that The Ten Commandments were a part of the law that was nailed to the cross. You maintain that moral law however still stands on the basis of revelation in Pauls letters for example, such as
Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So what was the status of the Ten Commandments between the time that it was nailed to the cross, and the time Paul wrote those letters?

The ten commandments were in the same status as any other part of the fulfilled law or nailed to the cross law. What is found in the NT is the NT law which isn't simply ten commandments and certainly not the letter of them but the moral and spiritual rights and wrongs that shall be with us for all time. No Saturday Sabbath is found commanded in the NT, nor in the Millennium or the eternity. There is a new, fuller Sabbath but I and many others have already spoken at length on that and quoted all relative scriptures on it. While I have nothing against the former Sabbath, it is this new one that is my Sabbath.

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 04:56 AM

Lol – who is “S Wohlberg” your local SDA “scholar”? Does he/she have a first name or are you trying to keep him/her incognito for obvious reasons? Philip Schaff is a world recognized scholar and his work on the Christian church is recognized as the “gold standard” on that subject and I will have to go with his work. Give me a bio on your new man – I hope he doesn’t turn out to be as embarrassing as the last one.;)

:) This seems to be becoming standard practice for you. You don't want to agree with someones views, so you give no consideration to what he/she is saying, but abuse them personally . What I gave you was a simple Bible study. You repeatedly claim ad nauseum that NT believers deliberately ignored the Sabbath. Wohlberg, a Christian Jew, has proved the opposite. You may go with the 'gold standard' of Paul Schaff. I will go with the Scriptures.
And you are still ignoring other historical quotes from other sources which disagree with your 'infallible' Schaff.

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 04:57 AM

Steve Wohlberg is the Speaker/Director of White Horse Media (http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/). With B.A. and M-Div. degrees in Theology, he has been a guest on over 500 radio and television shows, produced numerous TV series, hosted the nationally syndicated radio show World News and the Bible (2004-2006), and has authored 14 books. An international speaker, Steve has conducted Bible seminars in Russia, South Africa, Canada, Pakistan, New Zealand, Australia, and in cities throughout the U.S. 1-800-78-BIBLE.
s TV series, hosted the nationally syndicated radio show World News and the Bible (2004-2006), and has authored 14 books. An international speaker, Steve has conducted Bible seminars in Russia, South Africa, Canada, Pakistan, New Zealand, Australia, and in cities throughout the U.S. 1-800-78-BIBLE.

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 05:11 AM

He was also an invited speaker to a special symposium on the book of Revelation at the Pentagon weekly prayer breakfast and also to the regular Senate Staff Bible study held on Fridays.
An outline of his sermon to the pentagon can be seen here:http://http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/pentagon.pdf

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 05:54 AM

Arent these SDA teachings that really belong in the world religions forum?

Can this thread be moved to the more appropriate place?

Studyin'2Show

May 3rd 2008, 11:37 AM

Arent these SDA teachings that really belong in the world religions forum?

Can this thread be moved to the more appropriate place?I don't believe it's SDA. :hmm: I know I'm not SDA. SDA, I believe, teaches that people who worship on Sunday have received the mark of the beast, which I don't think brakelite believes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, brakelite. Here's the Statement of beliefs from the website you linked Naphal and I don't see anything that says it's SDA. http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/about/beliefs.cfm Now, EG White IS SDA, so we may need to cut out that but I'll check to see a ruling on it. Anyway, this is Controversial Issues which is not accessible to search engines due to membership restrictions so, I think we're safe with it here. ;) Carry on, but hey, let's NOT make this thing personal, okay?

Be Blessed!

Studyin'2Show

May 3rd 2008, 07:32 PM

After reading through this thread, a thought has come to me :idea: Maybe it is time to simply agree to disagree and move on! :)

Be Blessed!

brakelite

May 3rd 2008, 09:24 PM

I don't believe it's SDA. :hmm: I know I'm not SDA. SDA, I believe, teaches that people who worship on Sunday have received the mark of the beast, which I don't think brakelite believes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, brakelite. Here's the Statement of beliefs from the website you linked Naphal and I don't see anything that says it's SDA. http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/about/beliefs.cfm Now, EG White IS SDA, so we may need to cut out that but I'll check to see a ruling on it. Anyway, this is Controversial Issues which is not accessible to search engines due to membership restrictions so, I think we're safe with it here. ;) Carry on, but hey, let's NOT make this thing personal, okay?

Be Blessed!

Hi S2S, the link is to independant ministry not affiliated in any way as far as I know to the SDA church conference. Steve Wohlberg however is a Sevnth Day Adventist, as I am sure you know, as am I. The sermon outline I linked to is one given to the regular weekly Pentagon prayer breakfast. I am sure that what Wohlberg had to say to them is surely accaptable to be included in these forums.
But hey, like any teaching, if it's not Biblical, reject it right?

I might make a comment here about my own personal beliefs. I,ve racked up over 500 posts now ranging on subjects all over the forums. Nothing I have posted is not in line with SDA teachings. Yet this is the first time anyone has pulled me up on that and suggested the world religion forum for me. And that was not because of anything I'e said but because of a link.

***edited comments**

Oh, and abouit the mark of the beast. The SDA church does not teach that people have already accepted the mark of the beast by worshipping on Sunday.

And about Ellen White. If what she says in any quote given in these forums is true, then why reject it? And if you believe it is not true, then you are free to point that out.I've seen quotes from many secular and heretical sources in these forums and no complaint. Is there a special rule that applies just to Ellen White?
Now i guess I am really pushing the boundaries of this thread, so I'll back off and leave it at that. God bless.

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 09:57 PM

I don't believe it's SDA. :hmm: I know I'm not SDA. SDA, I believe, teaches that people who worship on Sunday have received the mark of the beast, which I don't think brakelite believes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, brakelite. Here's the Statement of beliefs from the website you linked Naphal and I don't see anything that says it's SDA. http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/about/beliefs.cfm Now, EG White IS SDA, so we may need to cut out that but I'll check to see a ruling on it. Anyway, this is Controversial Issues which is not accessible to search engines due to membership restrictions so, I think we're safe with it here. ;) Carry on, but hey, let's NOT make this thing personal, okay?

Be Blessed!

Nothing personal on my part. I just see this going more and more into SDA teachings with SDA teachers and prophets. Brakelights latest post speaks a lot about SDA and how shouldn't be considered a cult. I think that's enough to move this to the appropriate area...not stop it just properly place it is all.

Thanks!

Naphal

May 3rd 2008, 10:12 PM

Hi S2S, the link is to independant ministry not affiliated in any way as far as I know to the SDA church conference. Steve Wohlberg however is a Sevnth Day Adventist, as I am sure you know, as am I. The sermon outline I linked to is one given to the regular weekly Pentagon prayer breakfast. I am sure that what Wohlberg had to say to them is surely accaptable to be included in these forums.

In the world religions it is, not appropriate for here. SDA teachings are not supposed to be promoted here.

Nothing I have posted is not in line with SDA teachings. Yet this is the first time anyone has pulled me up on that and suggested the world religion forum for me. And that was not because of anything I'e said but because of a link.

You should be free to post in any forum as long as you abide by the same rules all of us have. As an SDA you have to be careful not to promote SDA teachings or that religion.

I find that quite interesting. Perhaps for the first time many here are hearing SDA teachings for the first time in context and with scriptural support and are although they may disagree on certain subjects are, I hope, beginning to realise that the SDA church maybe isn't the cult and heretical fringe group many here have been led to believe?

IMO I think saying these types of things does in fact violate the rules but the mods will decide.

Unorthodox teachings or discussing specific doctrines of ANY of these religions will be moved to
the "World Religions" Forum:
Teachings of ANY of these religions and discussion of specific doctrines may be discussed only in the World Religions forum
in the interest of seeking factual representation and refuting any doctrinal differences from mainstream Protestantism:

Oh, and abouit the mark of the beast. The SDA church does not teach that people have already accepted the mark of the beast by worshipping on Sunday.

Not already accepted but they do believe and teach that the mark of the beast will be Sunday worship. Do you believe that? I believe you've already stated as much but you can again if you like. I reject that teaching.

And about Ellen White. If what she says in any quote given in these forums is true, then why reject it? And if you believe it is not true, then you are free to point that out.

Not everything a false teacher says is false but it's the false things that make her a poor person to quote. It suggests she is worthy of listening to when she isn't. She's dangerous and most Christians should not be introduced to what she teaches.

I've seen quotes from many secular and heretical sources in these forums and no complaint. Is there a special rule that applies just to Ellen White?
Now i guess I am really pushing the boundaries of this thread, so I'll back off and leave it at that. God bless.

You can alert the mods to anything you feel shouldn't be in this forum.

Studyin'2Show

May 4th 2008, 12:02 AM

Hi S2S, the link is to independant ministry not affiliated in any way as far as I know to the SDA church conference. Steve Wohlberg however is a Sevnth Day Adventist, as I am sure you know, as am I. The sermon outline I linked to is one given to the regular weekly Pentagon prayer breakfast. I am sure that what Wohlberg had to say to them is surely accaptable to be included in these forums.
But hey, like any teaching, if it's not Biblical, reject it right?

I might make a comment here about my own personal beliefs. I,ve racked up over 500 posts now ranging on subjects all over the forums. Nothing I have posted is not in line with SDA teachings. Yet this is the first time anyone has pulled me up on that and suggested the world religion forum for me. And that was not because of anything I'e said but because of a link.
I find that quite interesting. Perhaps for the first time many here are hearing SDA teachings for the first time in context and with scriptural support and are although they may disagree on certain subjects are, I hope, beginning to realise that the SDA church maybe isn't the cult and heretical fringe group many here have been led to believe?
Oh, and abouit the mark of the beast. The SDA church does not teach that people have already accepted the mark of the beast by worshipping on Sunday.
And about Ellen White. If what she says in any quote given in these forums is true, then why reject it? And if you believe it is not true, then you are free to point that out.I've seen quotes from many secular and heretical sources in these forums and no complaint. Is there a special rule that applies just to Ellen White?
Now i guess I am really pushing the boundaries of this thread, so I'll back off and leave it at that. God bless.No, I was not aware that you are SDA. I'm not really hip to doctrinal stuff as that really isn't my thing. I feel I follow Yeshua and not a particular church doctrine so I'm not really up on this sort of stuff. Brakelite, the forum rules are quite clear and thus this particular thread will need to be moved to World Religions.

Be Blessed!

losthorizon

May 4th 2008, 01:23 AM

:) This seems to be becoming standard practice for you. You don't want to agree with someones views, so you give no consideration to what he/she is saying, but abuse them personally . What I gave you was a simple Bible study. You repeatedly claim ad nauseum that NT believers deliberately ignored the Sabbath. Wohlberg, a Christian Jew, has proved the opposite. You may go with the 'gold standard' of Paul Schaff. I will go with the Scriptures.
And you are still ignoring other historical quotes from other sources which disagree with your 'infallible' Schaff.
As I suspected, you can only support aberrant doctrine with the work of those within your own peculiar sect. Your new man is no better that your last so-called scholar. "S. Wohlberg" is just a SDA follower of Ellen White who was a false prophet of the third kind. When the truth of the Bible and the work of legitimate scholars disagree with your SDA dogma you just dig up another “scholar” who tows the same time-worn SDA line. ;)

We have a saying in Texas that goes something like this – “If you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.” Listen one more time to a real scholar whose words agree with the NT…
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”… Tertullian, at the close of the second…"We have nothing to do with Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lord’s Day…"Sunday we give to joy.” We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent Christian ground.” ~ Phillip Schaff

Studyin'2Show

May 4th 2008, 02:04 AM

Let's not make this a personal thing. Please remember to temper everything with love for without love you have nothing. That is a NT teaching as well and one we should not forget. ;) Debate the doctrine all you like but remember that we are ALL made in the image of God and how we treat each should reflect that. :)

Be Blessed!

brakelite

May 4th 2008, 03:42 AM

As I suspected, you can only support aberrant doctrine with the work of those within your own peculiar sect.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments....Can anyone think that sin exists where there is no law?...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity, abrogate sin also. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (trans., Weimer ed.), Vol. 50, pp. 470-471; originally printed in his Spiritual Antichrist, pp. 71, 72.

He who destroys the doctrine of the law, destroys at the same time political and social order. If you eject the law from the church, there will no longer be any sin recognized as such in the world. Martin Luther, quoted in M. Michelet’s Life of Luther (Hazlitt’s trans.), 2nd ed., Vol. 4, p. 315.

We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law, for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is consistent and uniform. John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 277.

Now men may cavil as much as they like about other parts of the Bible, but I have never met an honest man that found fault with the Ten Commandments. Infidels may mock the Lawgiver and reject Him who has delivered us from the curse of the law, but they can’t help admitting that the commandments are right...they are for all nations, and will remain the commandments of God through the centuries... The people must be made to understand that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and that there is a penalty attached to their violation...Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets, but He did condemn those who did not obey them [see Matthew 5:17-19]. Dwight L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting, pp. 11, 16, 15.

Jesus did not come to change the law, but he came to explain it [see Matthew 5:17-19], and that very fact shows that it remains, for there is no need to explain that which is abrogated...In addition to explaining it the Master went further: he pointed out its spiritual character. This the Jews had not observed. They thought, for instance, that the command ‘Thou shalt not kill’ simply forbade murder and manslaughter: but the Saviour showed that anger without cause violates the law, and that hard words and cursing, and all other displays of enmity and malice, are forbidden by the commandment [see Matthew 5:21, 22]. They knew that they might not commit adultery, but it did not enter into their minds that a lascivious desire would be an offence against the precept till the Saviour said, ‘He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her committeth adultery with her already in his heart.’ [see Matthew 5:27-30]. He showed that the thought of evil is sin, that an unclean imagination pollutes the heart, that a wanton wish is guilt in the eyes of the Most High. Assuredly this was no abrogation of law: it was a wonderful exhibition of its far-reaching sovereignty and of its searching character.

Once more, that the Master did not come to alter the law is clear, because after having embodied it in his life he willingly gave himself up to bear its penalty, though he had never broken it, bearing the penalty for us, even as it is written, ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.’ ‘All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.’ If the law had demanded more of us than it ought to have done, would the Lord Jesus have rendered to it the penalty which resulted from its too severe demands? I am sure he would not. But because the law asked only what it ought to ask— namely perfect obedience; and exacted of the transgressor only what it ought to exact, namely, death, as the penalty for sin,—death under divine wrath, therefore the Saviour went to the tree, and there bore our sins and purged them once for all. Charles Spurgeon, Perpetuity of the Law of God, pp. 4-7.
ON THE SABBATH
"The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"- D.L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting, page 47.

"God instituted the Sabbath at the creation of man, setting apart the seventh day for the purpose, and imposed its observance as a universal and perpetual moral obligation upon the race." *American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 175.

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance." Augustus Neander,(Lutheran,) History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, page 186.

"The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church." Augsburg Confession of Faith.

"They [the Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day… and they have no example more in their mouths than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue." The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff’s The Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p. 64.

"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction by found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!" Dr. Edward T. Hiscox D.D., author of The Baptist Manual, stated Nov. 13, 1893, at a New York Minister’s Conference discussing the heated debate over whether the Chicago World’s Fair should remain open on Sunday

Naphal

May 4th 2008, 03:47 AM

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments....Can anyone think that sin exists where there is no law?...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity, abrogate sin also. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (trans., Weimer ed.), Vol. 50, pp. 470-471; originally printed in his Spiritual Antichrist, pp. 71, 72.

He who destroys the doctrine of the law, destroys at the same time political and social order. If you eject the law from the church, there will no longer be any sin recognized as such in the world. Martin Luther, quoted in M. Michelet’s Life of Luther (Hazlitt’s trans.), 2nd ed., Vol. 4, p. 315.

...whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew xix, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." And when the young man asks Him, Matthew xix, what he shall do that he may inherit eternal life, Christ sets before him naught else but the Ten Commandments (Luther M. Treatise on Good Works, March 29, 1520).

Of course Mr. Luther is wrong here since Christ gave 6 of the ten. He definitely did not give the 4th commandment.

Naphal

May 4th 2008, 03:53 AM

But the sanctifying—that is, the teaching and preaching of God's word, which is the true, genuine, and sole meaning of this commandment—has been from the beginning and pertains to all the world forever. Therefore the seventh day does not concern us Gentiles, nor did it concern the Jews beyond the advent of the Messiah, although by the very nature of things one must, as already said, rest, celebrate, and keep the Sabbath on whatever day or at whatever hour God's word is preached. For God's word cannot be heard or taught when one is preoccupied with something else or when one is not quiet. (Luther, M. Against the Sabbatarians:Letter to a Good Friend, Part II, 1538).
From Martin Luther,

This Sabbath has now for us been changed into the Sunday, and the other days are called work-days; the Sunday is called rest-day or holiday or holy day. And would to God that in Christendom there were no holiday except the Sunday" (Luther, M. A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication, published 1520. In Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 173-285) and "God requires Christians to worship together...He has not specified any particular day...The church worships together especially on Sunday because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday (Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1986, p.67).

Studyin'2Show

May 4th 2008, 11:03 AM

...whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew xix, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." And when the young man asks Him, Matthew xix, what he shall do that he may inherit eternal life, Christ sets before him naught else but the Ten Commandments (Luther M. Treatise on Good Works, March 29, 1520).

Of course Mr. Luther is wrong here since Christ gave 6 of the ten. He definitely did not give the 4th commandment.What other three commandments do yo no longer regard as from God? :hmm:

losthorizon

May 4th 2008, 12:24 PM

We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law, for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is consistent and uniform. John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 277.

No one on this thread is teaching that we are not under law – mankind has always been accountable to God’s commandments much earlier than the giving of the ten commandment law to Moses at Sinai…man was accountable to His commandments "in the beginning"...
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Christians have never been under the Mosaic Law with included the sabbath command – Christians are under the Law of Christ which specifically does not include the requirement to keep the sabbath holy. There are many false treachings within the SDA sect – “sabbath keeping” is just one of many and all aberrant doctrine must be rejected for what they are – false teachings. Jesus Christ has freed us from the "Bondage of the Law" and we are to stand fast in that freedom...
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).If you ever dig up a reputable historian who has historical proof the apostolic church of God was compelled by God to obey the sabbath as a salvific matter then please present your evidence. Hint: SDA “scholars” who tow the line of EG White (false prophet) do not qualify as reputable. Why do you insist that Schaff is wrong - all scholars consider his work the most reliable and he wrote that the historical record shows without a doubt the apostolic church met on Sunday as the special day of worship to God and to celebrate the day that Christ rose from the grave? This all agrees with the NT record, btw.:)

Naphal

May 4th 2008, 11:46 PM

What other three commandments do yo no longer regard as from God? :hmm:

The other three can be found in the ten or other NT regulations but the 4th commandment is not commanded. I assumed you knew and agreed with that as I believe you have stated as much in the past and that it is completely a choice whether one observes it and how they choose to observe it. Is that not correct?

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 01:23 AM

The other three can be found in the ten or other NT regulations but the 4th commandment is not commanded. I assumed you knew and agreed with that as I believe you have stated as much in the past and that it is completely a choice whether one observes it and how they choose to observe it. Is that not correct?I believe you misunderstand my motivation. I 'choose' to remember the Sabbath day because God has written His Law in my heart, as Jeremiah prophesied. Being on my heart means that it is my 'desire' and no longer simply a forced obligation. So, I believe you have misunderstood my position. I do not feel as you do that one of the ten commandments no longer matters. In fact, I think from our Savior's actions, the Sabbath commandment is upheld, just not as the religious leaders of the time had interpreted. ;) One thing that's interesting to consider is that the number ten is the symbol of completion. So, for me, nine would be an incomplete representation of the Father's commands. Yeshua's two commands were said by Him to completely hold up the rest, with Him saying that the others 'hang' on them, not that they negate them.

Be Blessed!

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 01:37 AM

I believe you misunderstand my motivation. I 'choose' to remember the Sabbath day because God has written His Law in my heart, as Jeremiah prophesied. Being on my heart means that it is my 'desire' and no longer simply a forced obligation.

I apparently understood your motivation because I agree the Sabbath is not a forced obligation and thought you also agreed, and you do. Others believe it to be a forced obligation enforced by the law and that it is sin to break it.

So, I believe you have misunderstood my position. I do not feel as you do that one of the ten commandments no longer matters.

lol, that's where you misunderstand my position. I don't say it doesn't matter but that it was fulfilled as all ceremonial laws were.

In fact, I think from our Savior's actions, the Sabbath commandment is upheld, just not as the religious leaders of the time had interpreted. ;)

It was upheld while he was alive and yes, not as the leaders thought but also not as the letter of the Sinai law taught either. Christ was teaching about how the law would change from strict letter to spiritual fulfillment.

One thing that's interesting to consider is that the number ten is the symbol of completion. So, for me, nine would be an incomplete representation of the Father's commands.

I'm sure we can find more than 9 commandments in the NT. Christ listed 6, and then mentioned two more not part of the original ten. 3 of the 4 he didn't list of the original ten actually relate to other commandments so we have more than just ten.

Yeshua's two commands were said by Him to completely hold up the rest, with Him saying that the others 'hang' on them, not that they negate them.

Not negate but supercede and embody.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 01:43 AM

I think we both must be misunderstanding each other then because me saying that my motivation is desire not obligation does not mean that I believe the 4th commandment is no longer a commandment. :hmm: The commadment has not changed, it is my heart that has changed. ;) Yeshua came to turn the hearts of the children back to the Father, not to change God's Law.

Blessings to You!

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 01:45 AM

I think we both must be misunderstanding each other then because me saying that my motivation is desire not obligation does not mean that I believe the 4th commandment is no longer a commandment.

Oh ok. So do you believe it is a sin to break the Sabbath?

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 01:47 AM

Yeshua came to turn the hearts of the children back to the Father, not to change God's Law.

Are you saying there was no changes made to the law?

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 02:01 AM

Oh ok. So do you believe it is a sin to break the Sabbath?According to you I believe you said that you do observe Sabbath in Yeshua. I believe God knows the heart. Sin is rebellion against the word of God. So, I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning. Do you not remember the Sabbath 'day' because you are rebelling against God's word? If not, then why would it be sin?
Are you saying there was no changes made to the law?Yes, I am saying the GOD'S Law has not and will not change. ;)

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 02:35 AM

According to you I believe you said that you do observe Sabbath in Yeshua. I believe God knows the heart. Sin is rebellion against the word of God. So, I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning. Do you not remember the Sabbath 'day' because you are rebelling against God's word? If not, then why would it be sin?

That's side stepping my question. Allow me to make it more specific. Is breaking the Saturday Sabbath a sin?

Yes, I am saying the GOD'S Law has not and will not change. ;)

And you are aware that Christ nailed the law (some say part of it) to the cross and that scripture says the law had to be changed because the priesthood was changed? Even the entire covenant was replaced by a new one, that's quite a change to the law being there was a complete change. Sounds like a change occurred, don't you think? Still think no changes were made to the law?

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 02:55 AM

In fact, I think from our Savior's actions, the Sabbath commandment is upheld, just not as the religious leaders of the time had interpreted.

So is it your position that Christians today are commanded to “keep the sabbath” just as the Jews were commanded to keep the 4th commandment under the old Mosaic Law? Under the old law those Jews who did not keep the sabbath were to be “cut off” from God’s people. Are Christians who do not keep the sabbath also to be cut off – if not why not?

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 02:57 AM

That's side stepping my question. Allow me to make it more specific. Is breaking the Saturday Sabbath a sin?

And you are aware that Christ nailed the law (some say part of it) to the cross and that scripture says the law had to be changed because the priesthood was changed? Even the entire covenant was replaced by a new one, that's quite a change to the law being there was a complete change. Sounds like a change occurred, don't you think? Still think no changes were made to the law?Nope! Not side stepping at all. I answered your question.

Nope! I do not agree that Messiah nailed the Law of God to the cross, but that's a topic for another thread and I do believe we have been there and done that. :D

Be Blessed!

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 03:01 AM

So is it your position that Christians today are commanded to “keep the sabbath” just as the Jews were commanded to keep the 4th commandment under the old Mosaic Law? Under the old law those Jews who did not keep the sabbath were to be “cut off” from God’s people. Are Christians who do not keep the sabbath also to be cut off – if not why not?Is a Christian who covets something from his neighbor 'cut off'? Why not? :hmm:

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 03:09 AM

Is a Christian who covets something from his neighbor 'cut off'? Why not? :hmm:
If I covet my neighbor’s wife I am sinning against God. If I do not keep the 4th commandment am I also sinning against God? If I teach Christians they do not need to keep the sabbath under the Law of Christ am I teaching a false doctrine?

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 03:25 AM

Nope! Not side stepping at all. I answered your question.

Is breaking the Saturday Sabbath a sin though? You appear to say it is a sin but you wouldn't say it very clearly.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 10:35 AM

losthorizon and Naphal, rather than go back and forth here using my own words, let me rather use those of our Savior. ;) It is good to do good on the Sabbath. Using those words as a guide, I'm sure we can agree that it is bad to do bad on the Sabbath. Beyond that each one must judge himself. Read the word of God and walk in it.

Be Blessed! :)

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 10:40 AM

losthorizon and Naphal, rather than go back and forth here using my own words, let me rather use those of our Savior. ;) It is good to do good on the Sabbath. Using those words as a guide, I'm sure we can agree that it is bad to do bad on the Sabbath. Beyond that each one must judge himself. Read the word of God and walk in it.

Be Blessed! :)

Still avoiding the actual question. Am I wrong if I were to say you do believe it is a sin? Why not state it then?

If I asked you if murder was a sin I doubt I'd get such a song and dance from you :)

Is there anyone here able to come out and say, "Yes, breaking the Sabbath is a sin for a Christian"? I would respect someone's boldness!

Anyways, it is bad to do bad on any day but is working bad on the Sabbath? Is kindling fire bad? Of course not but it used to be.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 11:28 AM

Still avoiding the actual question. Am I wrong if I were to say you do believe it is a sin? Why not state it then?

If I asked you if murder was a sin I doubt I'd get such a song and dance from you :)

Is there anyone here able to come out and say, "Yes, breaking the Sabbath is a sin for a Christian"? I would respect someone's boldness!

Anyways, it is bad to do bad on any day but is working bad on the Sabbath? Is kindling fire bad? Of course not but it used to be.You seem to enjoy conflict, Naphal, while I do not. I've laid my position out as clear as a bell, I'm sorry you can't get it. :dunno:

Be Blessed!

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 12:25 PM

losthorizon and Naphal, rather than go back and forth here using my own words, let me rather use those of our Savior. ;) It is good to do good on the Sabbath. Using those words as a guide, I'm sure we can agree that it is bad to do bad on the Sabbath. Beyond that each one must judge himself. Read the word of God and walk in it.

Be Blessed! :)
Of course it is bad to do bad on any day the week – right? Your answer is simply a non-answer. I find those who dabble in Sabbath-keeping have a hard time telling other Christians they think it is a sin to not keep the Sabbath – why? Because they understand the difficulty of this non-biblical concept in light of what is written in the NT. In their heart they understand what it means to "turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements".

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 04:16 PM

Of course it is bad to do bad on any day the week – right? Your answer is simply a non-answer. I find those who dabble in Sabbath-keeping have a hard time telling other Christians they think it is a sin to not keep the Sabbath – why? Because they understand the difficulty of this non-biblical concept in light of what is written in the NT. In their heart they understand what it means to "turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements".Nope! Not because of anything biblical. God's word is clear. But because it is not my place to judge anyone else. It is for me to judge myself and to be a fruit inspector of others. And btw, I don't 'dabble' in anything. I respect my LORD's commandments....ALL of them! ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 04:19 PM

Nope! Not because of anything biblical. God's word is clear. But because it is not my place to judge anyone else. It is for me to judge myself and to be a fruit inspector of others. And btw, I don't 'dabble' in anything. I respect my LORD's commandments....ALL of them! ;)

God Bless!

But if we never name sin, then all can repent of... well nothing. We have no issue calling murder sin. That is not judging the heart of another believer, it is simply agreeing with what God says.

I do think there is room for interpretation on the sabbath. For that reason, I won't call breaking the saturday sabbath a sin.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 05:05 PM

But if we never name sin, then all can repent of... well nothing. We have no issue calling murder sin. That is not judging the heart of another believer, it is simply agreeing with what God says.

I do think there is room for interpretation on the sabbath. For that reason, I won't call breaking the saturday sabbath a sin.Which is why I originally stated this:
According to you I believe you said that you do observe Sabbath in Yeshua. I believe God knows the heart. Sin is rebellion against the word of God. So, I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning. Do you not remember the Sabbath 'day' because you are rebelling against God's word? If not, then why would it be sin?Going beyond that would be me trying to read someone else's heart and that is NOT my job. ;)

Be Blessed!

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 05:08 PM

Which is why I originally stated this:Going beyond that would be me trying to read someone else's heart and that is NOT my job. ;)

Be Blessed!

But Jesus prophesied that many would resist him thinking they did God a favor. All we need know is what God's mind is. If God says it's sin, it is not judging the heart of another.

One can murder, as Paul did, in the name of God. But we would all shout "SIN, SIN, SIN" even though he thought he was right. We can judge the act even if the heart is unknown to us... in some things. If the act is sin, it doesn't matter what the heart believes. Now, if it is only a matter of conviction, that is another thing totally. But if murder is wrong, then we can declare murder a sin.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 05:14 PM

But Jesus prophesied that many would resist him thinking they did God a favor. All we need know is what God's mind is. If God says it's sin, it is not judging the heart of another.

One can murder, as Paul did, in the name of God. But we would all shout "SIN, SIN, SIN" even though he thought he was right. We can judge the act even if the heart is unknown to us... in some things. If the act is sin, it doesn't matter what the heart believes. Now, if it is only a matter of conviction, that is another thing totally. But if murder is wrong, then we can declare murder a sin.Mark, you have said that you know that there are different interpretations of how one honors the 4th commandment, right? You've said you believe the TEN commandments still apply, right? So, is it sin to have no regard for the 4th commandment in ANY fashion? :hmm:

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 05:14 PM

And btw, I don't 'dabble' in anything. I respect my LORD's commandments....ALL of them! ;)

God Bless!
One “dabbles” when they engage in something (Sabbath-keeping) that is not required by God for Christians today and that same one implies that if one does not follow their example it is sin. It is in this respect that you dabble.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 05:21 PM

One “dabbles” when they engage in something (Sabbath-keeping) that is not required by God for Christians today and that same one implies that if one does not follow their example it is sin. It is in this respect that you dabble.Difference of opinion. Now what? String up all the followers of Yeshua who interpret scripture differently than you? Why not? That's what they did with us historically. What harm could I possibly be causing you by choosing to honor my Father's commandment? :confused If you ask me why I do, I will tell you but I have NEVER, and will NEVER tell you how you must interpret it. So, what's the problem? :dunno:

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 05:22 PM

Mark, you have said that you know that there are different interpretations of how one honors the 4th commandment, right? You've said you believe the TEN commandments still apply, right? So, is it sin to have no regard for the 4th commandment in ANY fashion? :hmm:

Yes it is. But then I am not teaching that God intended for others to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. If I were, I would have no problem calling it a sin not to do so.

Now, I understand that we grow in truth and in grace. At the very least, if Saturday is what God said we should keep holy, then it is a hidden sin for those that do not believe that to be the case. That is what I think 1 john refers to when he says "If a man says he has no sin, he makes God a liar". The point is we all sin if we are deceived in some matter about something.

So, if God commands us to keep saturday holy, and we do not, then it is a sin regardless of how one sees the sabbath. A hidden sin perhaps (in that it is hidden to the one committing it) but a sin nonetheless.

I think it a fair question. Is it sinful to not keep saturday as the sabbath? Now, within that question are all the understandings of sabbath exceptions ... meaning, it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.

We cannot judge the heart of another and say he is in rebellion if he doesn't keep the sabbath. But we can certainly declare if not keeping saturday (friday night to saturday night) as the sabbath is a sin or not.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 05:44 PM

Yes it is. But then I am not teaching that God intended for others to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. If I were, I would have no problem calling it a sin not to do so. When exactly have you seen me TEACHING anyone that they must keep Saturday as the Sabbath? :hmm: I don't even keep it as doctrine, because I somehow HAVE TO do this or that or get zapped. :lol: Now, if you ask me what day is the Sabbath I will say certainly, Friday evening to Saturday evening. I don't see how any could see it as any other day, including Sunday when our fellowship has a 'Lord's Day' service. So, if I were SDA or some other group that feels the new covenant is about an obligation to do this or that and not do this or that, I would doggone straight tell you. However, I believe the new covenant is NOT about an obligation. I believe God has written His Law in my heart. That means it is my DESIRE to to do His will and that, my friend, is why I remember the Sabbath 'day'!

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 06:18 PM

When exactly have you seen me TEACHING anyone that they must keep Saturday as the Sabbath? :hmm: I don't even keep it as doctrine, because I somehow HAVE TO do this or that or get zapped. :lol: So, if I were SDA or some other group that feels the new covenant is about an obligation to do this or that and not do this or that, I would doggone straight tell you. However, I believe the new covenant is NOT about an obligation. I believe God has written His Law in my heart. That means it is my DESIRE to to do His will and that, my friend, is why I remember the Sabbath 'day'!

God Bless!

I never said you preached or taught the zapping part. But you do imply and suggest and say that we are intended to keep friday night to saturday night as a sabbath day of rest.

Now, if one does all of God's law because it is in our heart, that is well and good and the way it is supposed to be. But we cannot then turn and say that not keeping that law is not sin! Is one obligated by law not to murder? Of course! Yet, murder is not what we as believers desire to do. Yet, let us preach heartily against murder for it is sin and sin works death even in the life of a believer.

Studyn, if it is a matter of personal conviction, then that is one thing. It no different than deciding what TV show to watch and the threads are moot.

Do you have the same attitude about murdering as you do keeping Saturday holy? If not, why not? Will you not preach against murder?

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 06:53 PM

Difference of opinion. Now what? String up all the followers of Yeshua who interpret scripture differently than you? Why not? That's what they did with us historically. What harm could I possibly be causing you by choosing to honor my Father's commandment? :confused If you ask me why I do, I will tell you but I have NEVER, and will NEVER tell you how you must interpret it. So, what's the problem? :dunno:
The problem is this - it is one thing to keep the Sabbath as a matter of personal choice but it is altogether another thing to imply that one who exercises his/her freedom in Christ to NOT keep that day is sinning against God. You have crossed that line and you are wrong. :hmm:

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 07:00 PM

I never said you preached or taught the zapping part. But you do imply and suggest and say that we are intended to keep friday night to saturday night as a sabbath day of rest.

Now, if one does all of God's law because it is in our heart, that is well and good and the way it is supposed to be. But we cannot then turn and say that not keeping that law is not sin! Is one obligated by law not to murder? Of course! Yet, murder is not what we as believers desire to do. Yet, let us preach heartily against murder for it is sin and sin works death even in the life of a believer.

Studyn, if it is a matter of personal conviction, then that is one thing. It no different than deciding what TV show to watch and the threads are moot.

Do you have the same attitude about murdering as you do keeping Saturday holy? If not, why not? Will you not preach against murder?Then I think this a point where we may need to just agree to disagree. :dunno: You're right that I believe our Creator know what's best for us and thus gave us all of the Ten Commandments because they are GOOD. My Lord and Savior while He walked this earth said that the Sabbath was made FOR man, and that's how I receive it as a gift from God. You say that you believe the Sabbath commandment is somehow different than the other commandments and say that you accept all ten as from God. I feel the same way. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's the same as every other commandment or it's different as you say. So, if it's acceptable for it to be different for you, why you insist on it being considered the same for me? :hmm: It is the one commandments He simply wants us to remember. So, no I won't budge on this one. :no: It is valuable FOR us and if you ask those who do they will tell you that it is a blessing NOT an obligation or curse.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 07:06 PM

The problem is this - it is one thing to keep the Sabbath as a matter of personal choice but it is altogether another thing to imply that one who exercises his/her freedom in Christ to NOT keep that day is sinning against God. You have crossed that line and you are wrong. :hmm:Please point out where I have said that anyone who doesn't keep the day is sinning? :o Shame on you for putting words into my mouth and then judging me for your misconceptions. :no:

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 07:51 PM

Please point out where I have said that anyone who doesn't keep the day is sinning? :o Shame on you for putting words into my mouth and then judging me for your misconceptions. :no:
You have been asked by more than one person if it is a sin to not keep the Sabbath and you referred to the sin of covetousness as a way avoiding an answer to a direct question. I will ask that direct question again and we can settle the matter – it is a sin for a child of God today to not keep the Sabbath day holy? A yes or no answer will be fine.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 07:54 PM

You have been asked by more than one person if it is a sin to not keep the Sabbath and you referred to the sin of covetousness as a way avoiding an answer to a direct question. I will ask that direct question again and we can settle the matter – it is a sin for a child of God today to not keep the Sabbath day holy? A yes or no answer will be fine.I'm tired of the game you're playing. I have answered your question in the only way it can be properly answered. And yes or no does not cover it. If that's not good enough for you, there's nothing more I can say. :dunno: And BTW, I will tell you that as a fruit inspector I certainly see no love which should be apparent in all we do.

Have a blessed day!

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 08:25 PM

I do think there is room for interpretation on the sabbath. For that reason, I won't call breaking the saturday sabbath a sin.

I am happy to hear that. Even more happy to hear a straight forward answer! Amen! :)

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 08:26 PM

I'm tired of the game you're playing. I have answered your question in the only way it can be properly answered. And yes or no does not cover it. If that's not good enough for you, there's nothing more I can say. :dunno: And BTW, I will tell you that as a fruit inspector I certainly see no love which should be apparent in all we do.

Have a blessed day!
If you ask me the question – “is it a sin to commit adultery?” – one of the 10 commandments given to Moses and reiterated under the Law of Christ I can give you a definite ‘yes’ answer. You should be able to do the same regarding the Sabbath question. :hmm:

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 08:54 PM

If you ask me the question – “is it a sin to commit adultery?” – one of the 10 commandments given to Moses and reiterated under the Law of Christ I can give you a definite ‘yes’ answer. You should be able to do the same regarding the Sabbath question. :hmm:Look LH, is there any debate over what it is to commit adultery? Even those who don't think NT believers are UNDER that law agree on what it is. Is there any debate on what it is to murder? Any debate on what it is to steal? But guess what? There is much debate over what it is to keep the Sabbath. Ask Naphal. He says that he DOES keep Sabbath in Yeshua. I would not tell a believer that believes in theistic evolution that he is sinning against God to believe in darwinian evolution. Why? Because it's all about the interpretation and I don't know their hearts. Why would you expect anything different with this?

Ask me the right question and I'll answer. Do I believe every believer would be better off if they took the time once a week to remember the Sabbath 'day' and to remember the 6/7 days of creation it represents? Yes! I absolutely do! I had no idea what I was missing until I began. I believe it is a gift from God that unfortunately, the majority of believers never receive. However, because of all the variation in the interpretation of this issue, it is impossible for anyone who is not a legalistic Sabbath keeper to answer that question. That's my position.

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 09:54 PM

Look LH, is there any debate over what it is to commit adultery? Even those who don't think NT believers are UNDER that law agree on what it is. Is there any debate on what it is to murder? Any debate on what it is to steal? But guess what? There is much debate over what it is to keep the Sabbath. Ask Naphal. He says that he DOES keep Sabbath in Yeshua. I would not tell a believer that believes in theistic evolution that he is sinning against God to believe in darwinian evolution. Why? Because it's all about the interpretation and I don't know their hearts. Why would you expect anything different with this?

Ask me the right question and I'll answer. Do I believe every believer would be better off if they took the time once a week to remember the Sabbath 'day' and to remember the 6/7 days of creation it represents? Yes! I absolutely do! I had no idea what I was missing until I began. I believe it is a gift from God that unfortunately, the majority of believers never receive. However, because of all the variation in the interpretation of this issue, it is impossible for anyone who is not a legalistic Sabbath keeper to answer that question. That's my position.
I would submit that there is a very fine line (a line easily crossed) between “legalistic Sabbath keepers” and those who keep the Sabbath and look at “the majority of Christians” who do not keep the Sabbath as those who are somehow “unfortunate” and are missing God’s full blessing. This is the same thinking as those who make the erroneous claim that the modern-day phenomena of “speaking in tongues” is a blessing that those who do not speak in tongues are missing. Both groups are wrong – I neither keep the Sabbath are a requirement from God or speak in tongues yet I enjoy His full blessings as a member of the body of Christ. Keeping the Sabbath is not bound on Christians today and it never has been from the beginning. :)

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 09:57 PM

I would submit that there is a very fine line (a line easily crossed) between “legalistic Sabbath keepers” and those who keep the Sabbath and look at “the majority of Christians” who do not keep the Sabbath as those who are somehow “unfortunate” and are missing God’s full blessing. This is the same thinking as those who make the erroneous claim that the modern-day phenomena of “speaking in tongues” is a blessing that those who do not speak in tongues are missing. Both groups are wrong – I neither keep the Sabbath are a requirement from God or speak in tongues yet I enjoy His full blessings as a member of the body of Christ. Keeping the Sabbath is not bound on Christians today and it never has been from the beginning. :)I am happy for you and pray that your blessings continue to be multiplied. :) I have no ill will toward you or anyone else who chooses not to remember the Sabbath.

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 10:04 PM

I am happy for you and pray that your blessings continue to be multiplied. :) I have no ill will toward you or anyone else who chooses not to remember the Sabbath.

Don't you mean those of us who choose not to remember the saturday sabbath? ;) I would submit that many of us who don't keep a day do remember the sabbath.

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 10:14 PM

Don't you mean those of us who choose not to remember the saturday sabbath? ;) I would submit that many of us who don't keep a day do remember the sabbath.That I can agree to. :D May our Lord bless you as well!

P.S. I still think you'd enjoy keeping the day too if the Spirit led you to observe it. But I can agree to disagree on that one. ;)

Naphal

May 5th 2008, 10:18 PM

Don't you mean those of us who choose not to remember the saturday sabbath? ;) I would submit that many of us who don't keep a day do remember the sabbath.

I both remember the former Sabbath (the 7th day) for what it was and what it pointed to and I keep and rest in the NT Sabbath which is in Christ. I am a Sabbath keeper by NT definitions but I do not keep the OT Sabbath...I do remember it though.

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 10:21 PM

I both remember the former Sabbath (the 7th day) for what it was and what it pointed to and I keep and rest in the NT Sabbath which is in Christ. I am a Sabbath keeper by NT definitions but I do not keep the OT Sabbath...I do remember it though.

I hear you. However, I would also submit, that when God commanded us to "remember" the Sabbath to keep it holy, he wasn't just referring to a memory but rather an action that results from memory. In other words "remember" and "keep".

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 11:16 PM

Then I think this a point where we may need to just agree to disagree. :dunno: You're right that I believe our Creator know what's best for us and thus gave us all of the Ten Commandments because they are GOOD. My Lord and Savior while He walked this earth said that the Sabbath was made FOR man, and that's how I receive it as a gift from God. You say that you believe the Sabbath commandment is somehow different than the other commandments and say that you accept all ten as from God. I feel the same way. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's the same as every other commandment or it's different as you say. So, if it's acceptable for it to be different for you, why you insist on it being considered the same for me? :hmm: It is the one commandments He simply wants us to remember. So, no I won't budge on this one. :no: It is valuable FOR us and if you ask those who do they will tell you that it is a blessing NOT an obligation or curse.

God Bless!

I have said from the beginning that all the law is to be kept in Spirit. I think my position is consistent because of that. All 10 are to be kept in spirit. But my friend, you also suggest that the letter is to be kept as well. That is why I ask about the difference. If it is a sin to murder, then surely it is wrong to not keep the Sabbath.

I will say it is sinful to break the sabbath. I have no issue with that. I will strongly state it! Breaking the Sabbath is SIN! So is murder. What I am suggesting, is that if God commands us to keep Saturday as the Sabbath, then it is sin for one not to do it. Why not call it sin then? It has always been that sin is a transgression against the Law. Is one transgressing the law of God when they do not keep the Saturday sabbath?

If on the other hand, it is personal conviction, that is entirely a different matter all together. I will say that Hebrews 3 and 4 strongly suggest that entering God's rest, while optional, is sinful if we do not do so.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention... the day of rest is for man. I personally think that Romans 14 clears up if we have to keep 1 day in particular or any day. But the spirit of the Sabbath day law is very, very important and is something every believer should keep. As for the day God gave to man, let him rest on whatever day he chooses to rest on. For it is a gift from God for him to rest on at least 1 day a week.

losthorizon

May 5th 2008, 11:25 PM

What I am suggesting, is that if God commands us to keep Saturday as the Sabbath, then it is sin for one not to do it.

Spot-on. :thumbsup:

Studyin'2Show

May 5th 2008, 11:32 PM

I have said from the beginning that all the law is to be kept in Spirit. I think my position is consistent because of that. All 10 are to be kept in spirit. But my friend, you also suggest that the letter is to be kept as well. That is why I ask about the difference. If it is a sin to murder, then surely it is wrong to not keep the Sabbath.

I will say it is sinful to break the sabbath. I have no issue with that. I will strongly state it! Breaking the Sabbath is SIN! So is murder. What I am suggesting, is that if God commands us to keep Saturday as the Sabbath, then it is sin for one not to do it. Why not call it sin then? It has always been that sin is a transgression against the Law. Is one transgressing the law of God when they do not keep the Saturday sabbath?

If on the other hand, it is personal conviction, that is entirely a different matter all together. I will say that Hebrews 3 and 4 strongly suggest that entering God's rest, while optional, is sinful if we do not do so.I completely respect your interpretation here but I would like to ask you something. You are quite correct to keep them all in spirit as our Lord made it clear that it was the heart and not the letter that was important. Let's look at His examples given in Matthew 5, shall we? He explained that not committing adultery was more than simply 'the letter' but that if we looked at another with lust in our heart we had already 'by the spirit' broken that commandment. Thusly He spoke of hating our brother meaning we had already committed murder 'by the spirit'. So, because you do not commit adultery in your heart, does that negate that you do not 'physically' commit adultery? Not hating your brother and thus not committing murder 'by the spirit', does that mean that you do not 'physically' not murder? If the 'spiritual' does not negate the 'physical' in those cases, why is it that you feel the 'spiritual' somehow negates the validity of the 'physical' when it comes to the 4th commandment? Believe me, it is not my intention to go back through all the back and forth we went through earlier today but I am just curious. Why? Can you not see that one who 'spiritually' enters into that rest can also 'physically' take the time to rest from the rat race each week? Why is it seen as an either or proposition only with this one command? :hmm:

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 5th 2008, 11:48 PM

I completely respect your interpretation here but I would like to ask you something. You are quite correct to keep them all in spirit as our Lord made it clear that it was the heart and not the letter that was important. Let's look at His examples given in Matthew 5, shall we? He explained that not committing adultery was more than simply 'the letter' but that if we looked at another with lust in our heart we had already 'by the spirit' broken that commandment. Thusly He spoke of hating our brother meaning we had already committed murder 'by the spirit'. So, because you do not commit adultery in your heart, does that negate that you do not 'physically' commit adultery? Not hating your brother and thus not committing murder 'by the spirit', does that mean that you do not 'physically' not murder?

If one keeps the spirit of those laws, one will not break the letter.

If the 'spiritual' does not negate the 'physical' in those cases, why is it that you feel the 'spiritual' somehow negates the validity of the 'physical' when it comes to the 4th commandment? Believe me, it is not my intention to go back through all the back and forth we went through earlier today but I am just curious. Why? Can you not see that one who 'spiritually' enters into that rest can also 'physically' take the time to rest from the rat race each week? Why is it seen as an either or proposition only with this one command? :hmm:

God Bless!First, I am curious as to why you won't call it a sin when that command is broken. Any time we break a command of God, it is a sin.

OK, with that out of the way... because I think the NT explains the entire purpose of the sabbath. Just as the letter is no longer needed for the temple stuff but the spirit is. However, I do see a difference in the temple laws and the sabbath. But as I said, the biggest reason is all the explaining in the NT about what it means to "rest".

Also, Jesus, being Lord of the Sabbath explained to the pharisees a very important point. If one follows Christ, he will be following the Sabbath. Again, Romans 14 speaks of how one can keep all days the same unto the Lord and another may honor 1 day unto the Lord. Then there is colossians and how it addresses Sabbath days.

I could go on and on. The point is, that the sabbath is spoken of repeatedly in the NT and explained in Christ. What I am about to write is the single biggest reason I think the spirit of the sabbath is most important. When the hebrew writer spoke of the rest we were to enter into, he went all the way back to the garden when God rested. His point? That God's rest pointed to how we were meant to rest in Him.

Every new testament writer that wrote of the Sabbath spoke of what it meant spiritually. That's why Paul could right about the sabbath in Colossians being only a shadow and then explain further in Romans how a man could honor a day or see them all the same and both could do so unto the Lord.

Finally, God's law is in our hearts. All mankind, including believers, know we need a day of rest. But few, very few, have it written in their hearts that Saturday is a day for man to take off from all work. In a believers heart, he knows it is wrong to murder his neighbor by being angry without cause; or to lust after a man or woman; or to bear false witness; or to not honor his father and mother, and so on. Each of the 10 is in the heart of believers and all will quickly acknowledge it. But saturday is not written into the heart of believers. What is written there is that we should cease from our labors and enter into His rest and only do His bidding.

So, while the NT writers too great care to tell us how idolatures, fornicators, murders, liars, etc. would not be in heaven, they never mentioned such things about those that do not keep the saturday sabbath. Then I look back and see that God commanded Israel to stone a man for breaking the Sabbath day! Why? Because he was very serious about what it shadowed and foretold about. We see just how serious he is in Hebrews when it is written about. Breaking the sabbath is a very serious thing.

Studyin'2Show

May 6th 2008, 12:31 AM

That's all well and good and though you may think it does explain why, it really doesn't, but I do appreciate the effort. Really. All the moedim, the appointments, the dress rehearsals are all about what they would come to represent in Him. On that we agree. When my daughter took her graduation pictures last year it was long before her graduation, the summer before in fact. When I looked at the image on the proofs and then on the actual pictures, I was able to look forward and anticipate the event. Then, months afterward the day approached and I saw the fulfillment of all we had anticipated, oh how awesome it was to be there and experience that momentous time! :pp Now, after that day was over and done, did I toss away the images because they were merely a foreshadowing of what had already come? No, the image has a place of prominence in my house. When I look at it I remember that time of fulfillment and that is a good thing. That image on the bookcase is not more important than my daughter, nor do I think it is. In the same way, I completely understand and concur with your view of what is truly of monumental importance; and that it the spiritual. That, however, takes nothing away from the physical image that I will keep displayed for all to see in my spiritual house. The physical does not take away from the spiritual, nor does the spiritual take away from the physical. ;)

Be Blessed!

Brother Mark

May 6th 2008, 12:37 AM

That's all well and good and though you may think it does explain why, it really doesn't, but I do appreciate the effort. Really. All the moedim, the appointments, the dress rehearsals are all about what they would come to represent in Him. On that we agree. When my daughter took her graduation pictures last year it was long before her graduation, the summer before in fact. When I looked at the image on the proofs and then on the actual pictures, I was able to look forward and anticipate the event. Then, months afterward the day approached and I saw the fulfillment of all we had anticipated, oh how awesome it was to be there and experience that momentous time! :pp Now, after that day way over and done, did I toss away the images because they were merely a foreshadowing of what had already come? No, the image has a place of prominence in my house. When I look at it I remember that time of fulfillment and that is a good thing. That image on the bookcase is not more important than my daughter, nor do I think it is. In the same way, I completely understand and concur with your view of what is truly of monumental importance; and that it the spiritual. That, however, takes nothing away from the physical image that I will keep displayed for all to see in my spiritual house. The physical does not take away from the spiritual, nor does the spiritual take away from the physical. ;)

Be Blessed!

Romans 14 clears it up for me along with other passages and I only barely touched on it. But again, it wasn't to convince you but to just answer your question. If you wish to keep the sabbath, that is fine.

Still, I think it a valid point that others have brought up. If you are going to say that the sabbath saturday is still to be kept, then it must be sin to not keep it. For God commanded it to be kept.

Why do you not call it a sin? God stoned a man in the old testament for gathering sticks. Was God stoning a man for not sinning? If it is not a sin to break the saturday sabbath, then it becomes personal conviction. Yet, you make it clear in your post this is more than personal conviction for you. Had God not made it a command, then I could understand your reluctance to call it a sin. But he didn't give the option. He commanded it. In all fairness, you claimed I was being inconsistent, yet I stay the same throughout the post on law. From the beginning, I have said it is the spiritual that matters and that we are dead to the letter. Yet, in one law you keep the letter and say it is sin (murder) but refuse to do the same for the sabbath.

Is it a sin to not keep saturday sabbath? Is it a sin to not keep the spiritual sabbath?

For you not to keep the sabbath saturday is clearly a sin as that is your conviction. But what of others? If it is commanded by God, it is sin. If not, it is not sin.

Studyin'2Show

May 6th 2008, 12:51 AM

Romans 14 clears it up for me along with other passages and I only barely touched on it. But again, it wasn't to convince you but to just answer your question. If you wish to keep the sabbath, that is fine.

Still, I think it a valid point that others have brought up. If you are going to say that the sabbath saturday is still to be kept, then it must be sin to not keep it. For God commanded it to be kept.

Why do you not call it a sin? God stoned a man in the old testament for gathering sticks. Was God stoning a man for not sinning? If it is not a sin to break the saturday sabbath, then it becomes personal conviction. Yet, you make it clear in your post this is more than personal conviction for you. Had God not made it a command, then I could understand your reluctance to call it a sin. But he didn't give the option. He commanded it.

Is it a sin to not keep saturday sabbath? Is it a sin to not keep the spiritual sabbath?Why is it so important to have my view of what is sin when God's word is what you should be looking at? What does my interpretation have to do with it? You have answered your own question by saying 'Yes, not adhering to the 4th commandment is sin.' I said this quite a while ago:
According to you I believe you said that you do observe Sabbath in Yeshua. I believe God knows the heart. Sin is rebellion against the word of God. So, I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning. Do you not remember the Sabbath 'day' because you are rebelling against God's word? If not, then why would it be sin?Yes, I am saying the GOD'S Law has not and will not change. ;)You see, I have no trouble calling sin a sin. However, because of the HUGE gray area of interpretation in this issue, it's IMPOSSIBLE to say anything beyond what I said there. "I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning." How much more clear can I be and I said that like 40 post ago. But no, I will NOT play this game and attempt to make anyone feel guilty for how they interpret that the 4th commandment is kept.

God Bless!

Brother Mark

May 6th 2008, 01:21 AM

Why is it so important to have my view of what is sin when God's word is what you should be looking at? What does my interpretation have to do with it?

Because it clarifies that which is not clear. You say on one hand it is the law of God. Scripture says to transgress the law is to sin. Yet, on the other, you insinuate that it is not sin to break the saturday sabbath.

You have answered your own question by saying 'Yes, not adhering to the 4th commandment is sin.' I said this quite a while ago:You see, I have no trouble calling sin a sin. However, because of the HUGE gray area of interpretation in this issue, it's IMPOSSIBLE to say anything beyond what I said there. "I believe those who have rebelled against God's word from the garden into the future are sinning." How much more clear can I be and I said that like 40 post ago. But no, I will NOT play this game and attempt to make anyone feel guilty for how they interpret that the 4th commandment is kept.

God Bless!You can be clear by saying "not keeping the sabbath as saturday is sin". Paul, thought he did God a favor by murdering Stephen. Did that make it any less rebellious? NO! It was still sin.

I am not asking you to say a man is rebelling against his own conscience or against his perception of God. I bring up the point because I think there is inconsistency in the stance you take. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you have no issue saying one has sinned who commits murder even if he does so in the name of God.

Do you see, the point is not us judging his heart but rather, what does the word of God say. There is no judgment by me when I say one who murders sins. That is clear in the commandments.

So, if one breaks the saturday sabbath thinking he is right, does he sin?

If no, then the commandment to keep the sabbath saturday is no longer a command. If yes, then the commandment is still considered by you something that is to be kept. If I felt that God commanded us to keep Saturday as the sabbath, and it was beyond conviction, then I would say I believed it to be a sin to break it without hesitation. Incorrect interpretation does not relieve us of sin.

Again, I am not asking you to judge another's heart. That is not what we do! But we do judge sin. We recognize it. What you wrote above defines sin by interpretation. You leave room for those to interpret the sabbath differently. Yet God leaves no room for us to miss him when it comes to sin. He convicted Paul of murder even though Paul thought it right to do so. Whatever is not of faith is sin. But even if a man rebels in faith, that is sin. IOW, for a man to think God wishes him to give up TV and he doesn't, to him it is sin. But if a man thinks he is doing God a favor by murdering, that doesn't make murder OK. So if God commands us to honor saturday as the sabbath, and we don't thinking we are OK, it is still sin. Right?

Studyin'2Show

May 6th 2008, 01:31 AM

Mark, what I said EXACTLY is that those who rebel against God's word are sinning. How is that saying something about their own conscience? If you rebel against God's word you are sinning! Now, apply that to this command considering that there is interpretation that varies from the SDA view that you will keep the Sabbath day or not be saved to your view that you must enter into His rest or be in sin to Naphal's view that it is not by any command but by choice that he keeps Sabbath in Him, to my view that it is not by obligation but by desire that I keep the physical Sabbath day AND enter into His rest in Yeshua. Do you know my heart, do you know Naphal's or even brakelite's for that matter? :hmm:

brakelite

May 6th 2008, 11:09 AM

Mark, what I said EXACTLY is that those who rebel against God's word are sinning. How is that saying something about their own conscience? If you rebel against God's word you are sinning! Now, apply that to this command considering that there is interpretation that varies from the SDA view that you will keep the Sabbath day or not be saved to your view that you must enter into His rest or be in sin to Naphal's view that it is not by any command but by choice that he keeps Sabbath in Him, to my view that it is not by obligation but by desire that I keep the physical Sabbath day AND enter into His rest in Yeshua. Do you know my heart, do you know Naphal's or even brakelite's for that matter? :hmm:

May I correct something here? Your understanding that the SDA view is akin to belief that no-one is saved who doesn't honor the Sabbath is wrong. E G White herself said that there are genuine Christians in every denomination, not excluding the RCC.

I would like to explain why I, as an SDA,I keep the Sabbath.
Many, it would appear from these forums, would suggest that it is because it is a commandment. But no, that would not be true. I do not murder anyone because it is a commandment not to. I don't even get angry with anyone (righteous indignation excluded),not even those who disagree with me here;)
Why do I not get angry with you Naphal or Lost Horizon? Because I love you. Not even because God tells me to love you. But because God has filled me with His Holy Spirit and quite frankly, I can't help but to love you. I can't get angry, I wouldnt dream of killing, not because it's against the law of God, but because of love.
The same goes for adultery. I have absolutely no thoughts toward anyone other than my wife. For 2 reasons. I love my neighbor too much to covet that which is his, and more so, I love my wife.
This does not take away the obligation of keeping those commandments. They are still, after all, commandments. And we are obligated to keep them. By both the spirit, and the letter.
But we don't keep them because of the letter, we keep them because of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
The same goes for all the commandments. Honoring parents, love. Not stealing, love. Not lieing, love. Not worshipping idols, love. Nat taking the Lord's name in vain, love. Keeping holy the Sabbath day, yes, love.
I do not keep the Sabbath commandment because it is a commandment. I do not keep the day holy by resting from secular labor and past-times on that day because God says so. I honor the day because I have this immense passionate love for my Savior:hug: because He loved me so much He died for me. I would do anything for Him. Because I love Him. I would do anything for Him because He loves me. Now that includes keeping holy that day He has given me that I may spend more time with Him. In fact, I wish every day could be a Sabbath day, but alas, one must make a living.:)
Now, that said, it must be added that the Sabbath commandment is still a commandment. It is not a suggestion or simply a good idea. It is as much an obligation as is the 6th commandment.
But God judges us by our motives and according to the light we have on any given point and at whatever stage of maturity and life we are at.There are many to whom the truth of the Sabbath has simply not been revealed. To some they have seen and read of it, but do not recognise it. It is not for Studyin' nor me to judge whether one has or has not been made aware by God of certain truths. There are many factors which enter into this issue. Our willingness to obey. Our willingness to learn. Our openess to the Spirit. Our desire to grow. etc etc. These we cannot judge.
If I catch someone stealing my car I may call him a thief, but I would never call him a sinner. Likewise, I may point out the obligations of honoring that day which God calls holy, but I will never call anyone a sinner if they do not.
Accusing others of being sinners was a pastime of the Pharisees. They even accused Jesus of being one.:o
But not even Jesus accused anyone directly of being a sinner. The closest He came to that was to tell people not to sin.
Condemning others by calling them a sinner for breaking any particular commandment is the sole prerogative of God. And quite frankly, I am uncomfortable with being challenged by some in such a way as to attempt to trap us into doing so.

Studyin'2Show

May 6th 2008, 12:01 PM

May I correct something here? Your understanding that the SDA view is akin to belief that no-one is saved who doesn't honor the Sabbath is wrong. E G White herself said that there are genuine Christians in every denomination, not excluding the RCC.I must say, this is different from the impression I've gotten from SDAs on this message board in the past. I apologize for making that as_umption.

Blessings! :)

Naphal

May 6th 2008, 08:22 PM

There are many to whom the truth of the Sabbath has simply not been revealed. To some they have seen and read of it, but do not recognise it.

I hope you realize that can be a double edged sword which cuts the opposite way than you might think it does. (no harm intended, just an analogy)

It's true the truth of the Sabbath hasn't been revealed to all, but not the Day of the week Sabbath almost everyone that knows anything about the bible is knowlegable about. It's the spiritual law and the spiritual Sabbath that I believe is what eludes more than the day-Sabbath eludes. That even applies to a good portion of today's Christians that know of the original Sabbath but know less about the new.

It reminds me of school. The OT Sabbath was Sabbath 101, a beginners course in it's principals but the Sabbath today is a more advanced concept. The beginners Sabbath doesn't elude very many people for the sake of it's simplicity. That doesn't mean it was bad or is bad today, but it is not a complex concept.

brakelite

May 6th 2008, 08:29 PM

I hope you realize that can be a double edged sword which cuts the opposite way than you might think it does. (no harm intended, just an analogy)

It's true the truth of the Sabbath hasn't been revealed to all, but not the Day of the week Sabbath almost everyone that knows anything about the bible is knowlegable about. It's the spiritual law and the spiritual Sabbath that I believe is what eludes more than the day-Sabbath eludes. That even applies to a good portion of today's Christians that know of the original Sabbath but know less about the new.

It reminds me of school. The OT Sabbath was Sabbath 101, a beginners course in it's principals but the Sabbath today is a more advanced concept. The beginners Sabbath doesn't elude very many people for the sake of it's simplicity. That doesn't mean it was bad or is bad today, but it is not a complex concept.
:)I understand what you are saying; my schooling then must have been backward. I grew up in the RCC till I was 25 then was saved and was baptised in the AOG. I Have been keeping the Sabbath for just 10 years.

brakelite

May 6th 2008, 08:53 PM

I must say, this is different from the impression I've gotten from SDAs on this message board in the past. I apologize for making that as_umption.

Blessings! :)

There are legalists in every communion:).
I must add however that SDA understanding of the prophetic picture regarding the antichrist and the mark, means that this will not always be the case. The time is coming we believe that Sunday laws will be introduced through the American legislature, and will be enforced vigorously. Of course the establishment clause at the moment stands in the way (or so it is believed by some), but the Supreme Court has already approved of the legality of Sunday laws on the basis, not of religion, (now that's a laugh), but on the basis of 'social betterment" or words to that effect.
Now the observing of Sunday rest in those circumstances is not a problem to some adventists, although it has in the past for some in your very own early history who chose to take literally that part of the commandment that says "you shall work 6 days", and were fined and jailed for doing so.
What we believe will eventually take place is what has happened throughout Christian history, persecution against those who choose to keep the Sabbath as well. At this stage the Sunday law will be global. And the entire world will be divided into just 2 camps. Those who observe Sunday solely, and those who choose the Sabbath. Then, the issue of Sabbath observance will be a world-wide contoversy. And the choice will be whether to observe that day which the RCC claims as her birthchild and a mark of her authority in religious matters, or the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.
A choice between the commandments of God and the commandments of men. This has been the issue throughout the history of the church from the time of Adam. Who to obey? Then, and only then, will it be a matter of salvation as only then will all the issues be made manifest. And there will be no excuse.

Studyin'2Show

May 6th 2008, 10:07 PM

There are legalists in every communion:).
I must add however that SDA understanding of the prophetic picture regarding the antichrist and the mark, means that this will not always be the case. The time is coming we believe that Sunday laws will be introduced through the American legislature, and will be enforced vigorously. Of course the establishment clause at the moment stands in the way (or so it is believed by some), but the Supreme Court has already approved of the legality of Sunday laws on the basis, not of religion, (now that's a laugh), but on the basis of 'social betterment" or words to that effect.
Now the observing of Sunday rest in those circumstances is not a problem to some adventists, although it has in the past for some in your very own early history who chose to take literally that part of the commandment that says "you shall work 6 days", and were fined and jailed for doing so.
What we believe will eventually take place is what has happened throughout Christian history, persecution against those who choose to keep the Sabbath as well. At this stage the Sunday law will be global. And the entire world will be divided into just 2 camps. Those who observe Sunday solely, and those who choose the Sabbath. Then, the issue of Sabbath observance will be a world-wide contoversy. And the choice will be whether to observe that day which the RCC claims as her birthchild and a mark of her authority in religious matters, or the Sabbath of the 4th commandment.
A choice between the commandments of God and the commandments of men. This has been the issue throughout the history of the church from the time of Adam. Who to obey? Then, and only then, will it be a matter of salvation as only then will all the issues be made manifest. And there will be no excuse.But what of those who do not worship at all; on either? That's why Sunday being the mark does not make sense to me. The vast majority of the world keeps neither Saturday OR Sunday in any reverence. :confused

losthorizon

May 6th 2008, 11:20 PM

There are legalists in every communion:).
I must add however that SDA understanding of the prophetic picture regarding the antichrist and the mark, means that this will not always be the case. The time is coming we believe that Sunday laws will be introduced through the American legislature, and will be enforced vigorously...
Lol - SDA fairytales at their worst – anyone gullible enough to believe this nonsense will believe anything.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15:9

Studyin'2Show

May 7th 2008, 12:47 AM

Lol - SDA fairytales at their worst – anyone gullible enough to believe this nonsense will believe anything.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15:9 Everything should be tempered with love. I disagree with the doctrine also but why the venom, without the love. :hmm: Believe it or not, I've seen you post on other subjects and I agree with a lot of what you say on other subjects. But on this you seem very cold and disconnected. I think that if you had the opportunity to witness to or discuss this issue with an SDA in person, you'd do so in a way that was more respectful and would likely have a better chance at being heard. Words typed on a page are already harsh, so to speak; without real emotion. Let's all take the time to season our words with the love of Jesus. :)

May you all be blessed!

losthorizon

May 7th 2008, 02:34 AM

Everything should be tempered with love. I disagree with the doctrine also but why the venom, without the love. :hmm: Believe it or not, I've seen you post on other subjects and I agree with a lot of what you say on other subjects. But on this you seem very cold and disconnected. I think that if you had the opportunity to witness to or discuss this issue with an SDA in person, you'd do so in a way that was more respectful and would likely have a better chance at being heard. Words typed on a page are already harsh, so to speak; without real emotion. Let's all take the time to season our words with the love of Jesus. :)

May you all be blessed!
I subscribe to the concept of “tough love” when dealing with “grievous wolves” who teach aberrant doctrine and who would lead weak Christians into bondage and rob them of their freedom found in Christ Jesus, therefore endangering their very souls. The SDA movement started her history with a lie when Christ did not come again in 1844 as promised by her many false prophets. I am not required by my God to have love for an organization that maintains one must be yoked again to “keeping the Sabbath day” and teaches that Christians who reject this false teaching are the very ones who will receive the “mark of the beast” and be damned by God.

If my posts on this thread appear harsh then so be it but such aberrant teaching should never go unchallenged by any Christian - yourself included - "therefore watch"! This is not some game we play at our leisure - there is eternal salvation at stake of those who may be "drawn away" by those who have "already departed". :)
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:29-31 (KJV)

Studyin'2Show

May 7th 2008, 02:36 AM

I subscribe to the concept of “tough love” when dealing with “grievous wolves” who teach aberrant doctrine and who would lead weak Christians into bondage and rob them of their freedom found in Christ Jesus, therefore endangering their very souls. The SDA movement started her history with a lie when Christ did not come again in 1844 as promised by her many false prophets. I am not required by my God to have love for an organization that maintains one must be yoked again to “keeping the Sabbath day” and teaches that Christians who reject this false teaching are the very ones who will receive the “mark of the beast” and be damned by God.

If my posts on this thread appear harsh then so be it but such aberrant teaching should never go unchallenged by any Christian - yourself included. This is not some game we play at our leisure - there is eternal salvation at stake of those who may be "drawn away" by those who have "already departed". :)
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:29-31 (KJV)I see the 'tough', I just don't see the 'love' :dunno:Is it a 'perverse thing' to honor the LORD's Sabbath?

Have a good night! :)

Naphal

May 7th 2008, 02:45 AM

I see the 'tough', I just don't see the 'love' :dunno:Is it a 'perverse thing' to honor the LORD's Sabbath?

Speaking for myself, no. But, I think you can admit that there is tough and no love on the other side of the fence as well :)

Then there is you and me, we play nicely! ;)

losthorizon

May 7th 2008, 03:38 AM

I see the 'tough', I just don't see the 'love'
Of course, you don’t understand the tough love concept – the love is there it is just tough. You have never been in the military I presume.

Is it a 'perverse thing' to honor the LORD's Sabbath?
As I have stated many times – one is free in Christ to keep the seventh day. The perversion is to require keeping the seventh day as a requirement for one’s salvation. Do you require such keeping of the seventh day or is that something you prefer not to discuss? ;)

Studyin'2Show

May 7th 2008, 10:38 AM

Speaking for myself, no. But, I think you can admit that there is tough and no love on the other side of the fence as well :)

Then there is you and me, we play nicely! ;)Cute! :P

Of course, you don’t understand the tough love concept – the love is there it is just tough. You have never been in the military I presume.

As I have stated many times – one is free in Christ to keep the seventh day. The perversion is to require keeping the seventh day as a requirement for one’s salvation. Do you require such keeping of the seventh day or is that something you prefer not to discuss? ;)The military? Well, I watched 'Boot Camp' and 'Celebrity Boot Camp' on reality tv. Does that count? :lol: Look! I think it's a matter of interpretation of prophesy; not salvific. Like the pre/mid/a/post-trib stuff or the OSAS/NOSAS thing. It doesn't change the fact that we have all cried out to and accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as our Lord and Savior. But alas, I need to take a break from this. I had intended to take yesterday off but that didn't work :rolleyes: so I guess I have to unsubscribe and check you guys out later. Play nice while I'm gone! :P

Be Blessed! :)

losthorizon

May 7th 2008, 12:35 PM

Cute! :P
The military? Well, I watched 'Boot Camp' and 'Celebrity Boot Camp' on reality tv. Does that count? :lol: Look! I think it's a matter of interpretation of prophesy; not salvific. Like the pre/mid/a/post-trib stuff or the OSAS/NOSAS thing. It doesn't change the fact that we have all cried out to and accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as our Lord and Savior. But alas, I need to take a break from this. I had intended to take yesterday off but that didn't work :rolleyes: so I guess I have to unsubscribe and check you guys out later. Play nice while I'm gone! :P

Be Blessed! :)
Encouraged to hear it is not a salvific matter with you as our SDA friends erroneously teach. God bless.

Brother Mark

May 7th 2008, 12:49 PM

Encouraged to hear it is not a salvific matter with you as our SDA friends erroneously teach. God bless.

Studyn and I have discussed this issue thoroughly over the last few months. I can assure you she doesn't see it as a salvific issue. Not only that, but she believes that as one grows in grace and knowledge, that God will lead each of his children to observe the Sabbath as He sees fit. In other words, she will tell you to follow what God is showing you concerning the day. The grace and kindness with which she speaks of her beliefs speaks well, not only of her character and Godliness, but also of her carefully thought and prayed over beliefs. Even though we disagree, I personally have much respect for the way she approaches scripture and her relationship with God. She has my ear, even if we don't always agree.

brakelite

May 7th 2008, 09:41 PM

The SDA movement started her history with a lie when Christ did not come again in 1844 as promised by her many false prophets.
A little history lesson.
The great 'spiritual awakening' of the early 19th century was a worldwide phenomenon. The Holy Spirit moved in every denomination to awaken people to the times in which they lived. Preachers the world over, independent of one another, began to preach end-time doctrine. This preaching revolved around the 2300 days of Daniel
Da 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

In your own nation William Miller believed the sanctuary spoken of here was the earth. Because the 2300 days(years) culminated in the autumn of 1844, and there was no temple obviously, then the error was understandable. They believed, and may thousands all over the world believed, that Jesus was to return to the earth to cleanse it for His reign.
To this day, no-one has been able to refute the accuracy of the 1844 date.
Miller did not proclaim himself to be a prophet. Therefore I think it unfair for him to be labelled a false prophet.
The people who expected Jesus return at that time were Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, and many others.
The SDA church did not start until 20 years later. Not once, in all SDA history, has any leader nor the organisation itself, laid out any other date for Jesus return. Not once.

I am not required by my God to have love for an organization that maintains one must be yoked again to “keeping the Sabbath day” and teaches that Christians who reject this false teaching are the very ones who will receive the “mark of the beast” and be damned by God.
Obeying God may be a yoke and bondage to you, but if you care to take the time to genuinely enquire you will find that for most Sabbath keepers, myself and Studyin included, would tell you that it is the highlight of the week. And far from being a bondage, is actually a delight and a joy, and a day to look forward to.
As for the mark of the beast part, I agree with Studyin', that that is a prophetic interpretation which ought not be the catalyst fro the virulent attacks on my integrity as a Christian. There are many different interpretations of prophecy espoused within these forums. I don't accuse any of them for being false prophets and wolves just because I happen to disagree with them.
As to Sunday being made a part of US law, why should that surprise you? It already is in at least 30 states. And it has, in the past, been used.
We just happen to believe, as most of the reformers believed, that the papacy is the antichrist. And it is the papacy herself which claims that Sunday sacredness is the mark of her authority, because she was the entity responsible for the change. It is not that much a stretch of the imagination to accept that a strong catholic country (espec if the US joins with Can. and Mex.) would introduce a nationwide Sunday law.

If my posts on this thread appear harsh then so be it but such aberrant teaching should never go unchallenged by any Christian - yourself included - "therefore watch"! This is not some game we play at our leisure - there is eternal salvation at stake of those who may be "drawn away" by those who have "already departed". :)
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:29-31 (KJV)
I actually agree with your last passage although I would apply it to those you have quoted in the past as early church fathers who supported Sunday. Those early church fathers, such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr et al were all of the Alexandrian school of thought along with Origen. They were the heretics who joined with Rome to observe Sunday. Most everywhere else, like in Antioch and further East, and in the Celtic churches and in Spain and Africa, the Sabbath was continued to be observed for centuries.
Lucian was one such early church father who did observe the Sabbath, who was responsible for the itala Bible from which the 'received text' was derived.
There are many quotes from early manuscripts and historical records that are evidence to this. And more besides which give evidence to the destruction of many records by the papacy throughout history and her long and vicious campaign against Sabbath keepers throughout her territories. The Albigenses and the Waldensians are examples of peoples who for generations were missionaries and Sabbath keepers.

losthorizon

May 7th 2008, 11:55 PM

A little history lesson…. Miller did not proclaim himself to be a prophet. Therefore I think it unfair for him to be labelled a false prophet.

Let me correct your history lesson - William Miller, the founder of your Adventist heritage was raised a Baptist. As a false prophet (date-setter) he selected many dates for the second coming of Christ – the first was spring 1843 but it failed – next was spring 1844 and it also failed – and the third time was the charm…October 1844 and it too pooped-out. After his third “failure” all of his followers who realized they had been duped by the big lies went somewhere else but the “true believers” started the sundry Adventist sects we see today including the Watchtower pretenders and your own Seventh-day Adventists sect.

As they say – “time is the worst enemy of the false prophet” and Miller was certainly no stranger to being proven the false prophet history records him to be. So you are incorrect and I am not being unfair – Miller was a false prophet extraordinaire according to the Book…what he proclaimed in the name of the Lord – that Jesus would return mid-nineteenth century – did “not take place or come true” – therefore according to God's word - William Miller “has spoken presumptuously” and he was a false prophet in a long line of false prophets intent on leading into bondage the weak of the faith.
You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:21,22).

Not once, in all SDA history, has any leader nor the organisation itself, laid out any other date for Jesus return. Not once.
Regarding the many false prophecies and many silly rants of E.G. White – the high priestess of the SDA sect - we can discuss her "ascension into heaven" where she saw the "throne of God" and many other of her peculiar quirks if you wish.

Obeying God may be a yoke and bondage to you, but if you care to take the time to genuinely enquire you will find that for most Sabbath keepers, myself and Studyin included, would tell you that it is the highlight of the week. And far from being a bondage, is actually a delight and a joy, and a day to look forward to.
But you are not obeying God – you are teaching “another gospel” – the old Galatians error (who has bewitched you) of going back under the bondage of the Old Covenant that was nailed to the cross of Christ. I will continue to exercise my freedom in the “perfect law of liberty” and not go back to the weak and beggarly elements that Sabbatarians require.

As for the mark of the beast part, I agree with Studyin', that that is a prophetic interpretation which ought not be the catalyst fro the virulent attacks on my integrity as a Christian.
If you or Studyin wish to read “virulent attacks” on Christians then I would recommend you read what Ellen White wrote regarding those of us who celebrate the Lord’s Day on the same day Jesus Christ arose from the dead – Sunday. In her ramblings you will find all the virulence you need to last a lifetime. I will be happy to go there with you if you need another history lesson but you know what I say is true. And for your “prophetic interpretation” you are not in reality. What she wrote needs absolutely no “interpretation” – the hate oozes out in all directions – those who worship according to the apostolic pattern (assembling on Sunday) are those who will receive the “mark of the beast” and we will all be cast into a devils hell. Now that is a virulent attack on God’s elect if ever there was one. Btw - we must all question the "integrity" of anyone who follows false teachers such as Mrs. White.;)

The Albigenses and the Waldensians are examples of peoples who for generations were missionaries and Sabbath keepers.
That’s interesting because the Waldensian Church is still in existence today in Italy, the US and South America (among other locations) and is included in the Alliance of Reformed Churches of the Presbyterian Order and they celebrate the Lord’s Day on - believe it or not -the Lord’s Day – ie – their public worship is on Sunday. How about that? Where did you receive your history degree - SDA "U"?

losthorizon

May 8th 2008, 01:14 AM

Studyn and I have discussed this issue thoroughly over the last few months. I can assure you she doesn't see it as a salvific issue. Not only that, but she believes that as one grows in grace and knowledge, that God will lead each of his children to observe the Sabbath as He sees fit. In other words, she will tell you to follow what God is showing you concerning the day. The grace and kindness with which she speaks of her beliefs speaks well, not only of her character and Godliness, but also of her carefully thought and prayed over beliefs. Even though we disagree, I personally have much respect for the way she approaches scripture and her relationship with God. She has my ear, even if we don't always agree.
Mark – I appreciate your defense of our friend’s views but I must ask you for the sake of consistency – can Christians be bound to both the Torah and the "perfect law of liberty" (Law of Christ) at the same time? According to Paul we would be committing spiritual adultery if we are “married” to both laws at the same time..."we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the freewoman" are we not?
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Galatians 4:21-31 (KJV)There are many classes of Sabbath-keepers on this board – we have (1) the extreme SDA variety that make sabbath-keeping a salvific matter – keep the sabbath or burn in hell with the mark of the beast on your forehead. (2) We have those who keep the sabbath as a matter of personal conviction but realize the fourth commandment is not binding on Christians today because it was part of the law nailed to the cross. (3) And we have those who say on one hand that keeping the fourth commandment is not a salvific matter yet on the other hand they maintain it is a commandment binding on all Christians today and must be obeyed to please God.

The SDA are at least consistent in their error and those who keep the sabbath as a personal choice realizing it is not a command from God that MUST be obeyed are following their personal conviction in their walk with God. But those who insist the fourth commandment is part of God’s commandments to all Christians and then say it is not a salvific matter are inconsistent in their convictions and they defy logic. If it is a commandment from God then we MUST obey that command – it no longer is a matter of choice.

Question for you – if God commands all Christians to “keep” the fourth commandment as part of His law is it optional or must we in fact keep it as a salvific matter? Remember - those Jews who refused to keep the seventh day were "cut off" from the congregation.

Brother Mark

May 8th 2008, 01:28 AM

Mark – I appreciate your defense of our friend’s views but I must ask you for the sake of consistency – can Christians be bound to both the Torah and the "perfect law of liberty" (Law of Christ) at the same time? According to Paul we would be committing spiritual adultery if we are “married” to both laws at the same time..."we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the freewoman" are we not?
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Galatians 4:21-31 (KJV)There are many classes of Sabbath-keepers on this board – we have (1) the extreme SDA variety that make sabbath-keeping a salvific matter – keep the sabbath or burn in hell with the mark of the beast on your forehead. (2) We have those who keep the sabbath as a matter of personal conviction but realize the fourth commandment is not binding on Christians today because it was part of the law nailed to the cross. (3) And we have those who say on one hand that keeping the fourth commandment is not a salvific matter yet on the other hand they maintain it is a commandment binding on all Christians today and must be obeyed to please God.

The SDA are at least consistent in their error and those who keep the sabbath as a personal choice realizing it is not a command from God that MUST be obeyed are following their personal conviction in their walk with God. But those who insist the fourth commandment is part of God’s commandments to all Christians and then say it is not a salvific matter are inconsistent in their convictions and they defy logic. If it is a commandment from God then we MUST obey that command – it no longer is a matter of choice.

Question for you – if God commands all Christians to “keep” the fourth commandment as part of His law is it optional or must we in fact keep it as a salvific matter? Remember - those Jews who refused to keep the seventh day were "cut off" from the congregation.

Hebrews 3 and 4 makes it pretty clear that we are still to keep the 4th command. But perhaps not in the way that some speak.

As for how others view the Sabbath, I think it fair to let them have their interpretation. In God's timing, he can change their opinion. You and I most likely will not accomplish that. I have made clear my views on works and salvation in other threads, but for clarity sake, no I don't see the sabbath as an issue of salvation. I do however, see it as a matter of pleasing God. Israel's refusal to "enter into His rest" caused God to get angry with them. He then swore in his wrath that generation would not enter into his rest.

The 4th command is very important to God even today, IMO. However, the day of rest is not the issue, as much as ceasing from our own works is the issue.

As for being bound up or under the law, there are valid points on both sides. For instance, God's law is in my heart. All 10 of them are placed in the heart of every believer and written in them. Are we under them any more? Nope. But we keep them because they are in us. The eternal law of God is Jesus and Jesus is in me. When I do not do as Christ did, then I am convicted by the law written in my heart and by the Holy Spirit.

losthorizon

May 8th 2008, 02:00 AM

Hebrews 3 and 4 makes it pretty clear that we are still to keep the 4th command. But perhaps not in the way that some speak.

The Jews were given the command to keep the physical seventh day of the week holy as a memorial for their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand of God (Deuteronomy 5:15) – where are Christians commanded under the Law of Christ to keep this same command - to keep the literal seventh day of the week?

Brother Mark

May 8th 2008, 04:04 AM

The Jews were given the command to keep the physical seventh day of the week holy as a memorial for their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand of God (Deuteronomy 5:15) – where are Christians commanded under the Law of Christ to keep this same command - to keep the literal seventh day of the week?

I never said we had to keep the 7th day of the week as the sabbath. IMO, Romans 14 along with other passages suggest that is not the case. However, we are commanded still to keep that which the sabbath pointed to... rest in God.

The feasts of the Lord are something that we keep too. But in a spiritual sense. Paul said we no longer live by the letter of the law, but by the Spirit. Passover is kept when one gets saved. The punishment for not having the Lamb's blood around the door of our heart is hell. So God still takes seriously the passover. But to keep it by the letter is not as important as keeping it by the Spirit. The same is true with Sabbath as well.

But as a side note, the 10 commandments were put into the ark. That would suggest to me that they are the eternal laws of God. The laws of Moses were placed outside the ark. They are the regulations of the covenant that have faded away.

As for the commands being given to Jews, Paul said he is a Jew who is one inwardly. Add to that, that Abraham is the father of us all in the faith, and I think it safe to say all commands were given to Jews were also given to Christians. We just keep them in Spirit today and not in letter.

losthorizon

May 8th 2008, 12:45 PM

I never said we had to keep the 7th day of the week as the sabbath.

Then are we on the same page - those Christians who teach that Christians must keep of the seventh day as a requirement for God's people today are teaching error?

Studyin'2Show

May 8th 2008, 04:19 PM

There are many classes of Sabbath-keepers on this board – we have (1) the extreme SDA variety that make sabbath-keeping a salvific matter – keep the sabbath or burn in hell with the mark of the beast on your forehead. (2) We have those who keep the sabbath as a matter of personal conviction but realize the fourth commandment is not binding on Christians today because it was part of the law nailed to the cross. (3) And we have those who say on one hand that keeping the fourth commandment is not a salvific matter yet on the other hand they maintain it is a commandment binding on all Christians today and must be obeyed to please God.

The SDA are at least consistent in their error and those who keep the sabbath as a personal choice realizing it is not a command from God that MUST be obeyed are following their personal conviction in their walk with God. But those who insist the fourth commandment is part of God’s commandments to all Christians and then say it is not a salvific matter are inconsistent in their convictions and they defy logic. If it is a commandment from God then we MUST obey that command – it no longer is a matter of choice.

Question for you – if God commands all Christians to “keep” the fourth commandment as part of His law is it optional or must we in fact keep it as a salvific matter? Remember - those Jews who refused to keep the seventh day were "cut off" from the congregation.Well, I guess my sabbatical is over. :) LH, you seem to do an impressive job of misunderstanding other people's positions. :rolleyes: I think you have managed in you three categories to misinterpret them all. This should not be about trying to throw out shock value but rather about discussing the truth of God's word. As for your group 3, which I gather is where you would throw me, you are WAY off with the whole 'binding on all Christians' thing. Both Mark (who I guess you'd lump in with group 2 though he considers the keeping of Sabbath spiritually) and I have told you that the motivation is NOT a binding as if some burden has been placed upon our shoulders. The commandments (ALL of them) that have been written on our heart is not about being God physically opening our fleshly heart and taking a divine pen to physically write words on the flesh. But is rather about being motivated by desire. That is what the 'heart' represents in scripture; our desire. He always intended for His people to 'desire' His instruction but they kinda missed that. Yeshua came to flesh it out for us; to show us what that desire looks like.

Regarding SDA, as one who attends a house church fellowship, I know it's always best to go to the source for information rather than those who oppose the source. For example, I am a young earth creationist and an ID proponent. I've found that evolutionists tend to grossly misinterpret what we believe so if you were to look up the definitions of an IDer on a darwinian evolutionists site, it would be all wrong. So, don't go to them, go to an ID site to find out what IDers believe. Why don't you just allow brakelite to tell you what he believes rather than telling him what you think he believes. :hmm:

God Bless! :)

Naphal

May 8th 2008, 10:39 PM

I have attended an SDA church and was able to ask direct questions about this issue and the official position is that keeping the Saturday Sabbath is salvational. Those that do not keep the Saturday Sabbath are not saved according to their beliefs. Not all individual SDA members will agree but that's the official position. It is rarely broadcast openly but that is the true belief and it's one of many reasons why the SDA is considered a cult and heresy.

losthorizon

May 8th 2008, 10:59 PM

Well, I guess my sabbatical is over. :) LH, you seem to do an impressive job of misunderstanding other people's positions. :rolleyes:
Well Studyin some people are rather evasive with their answers as though they are embarrassed to give complete and descriptive answers to simple questions. In point of fact – I asked you on this thread (as did others) if I do not keep the Sabbath am I committing sin – a simple straightforward question to which you offered a cloaked reference to covetousness. So you can see if you veil your answers they are easily misunderstood.

I think you have managed in you three categories to misinterpret them all. This should not be about trying to throw out shock value but rather about discussing the truth of God's word.
And again I must respectfully disagree with you – while I may cut out the fluff and cordiality (just my style when dealing with the gross error of SDAism) I only present the truth recorded in Holy Writ and historical fact as presented by first-class historians who are recognized by all scholars as experts on the subject at hand. And these scholars all record the absence of Sabbath-keeping among the early church - a point that neither you nor our SDA friend have yet addressed. Why? Is Philip Schaff and every other reputable scholar incorrect when they unanimously agree that the Christians leaders who were taught at the feet of the apostles did not keep the seventh day but they did publically celebrate the Lord’s resurrection on the same day He arose from the dead – Sunday – the Lord’s Day. Do you publically assemble with the saints on that same Lord’s Day? If not – why not?

As for your group 3, which I gather is where you would throw me, you are WAY off with the whole 'binding on all Christians' thing. Both Mark (who I guess you'd lump in with group 2 though he considers the keeping of Sabbath spiritually) and I have told you that the motivation is NOT a binding as if some burden has been placed upon our shoulders.
Any way you wish to spin mandatory Sabbath-keeping it is what it is – a binding requirement on Christians who are free of such obligatory Jewish rites and practices – we are under the perfect law of liberty and are expressly warned against reverting back to the “weak and beggarly shadows” of Judaism. The question goes begging – if the fourth commandment is binding on Christians as you insist how can you deny it is not a sin to keep it just as the Jews were instructed to keep that day. I do not keep the seventh day as a matter of faith am I a sinner in God’s eyes? Please answer truthfully without the veil so I will not be accused of misunderstanding your answer as you have already accused.

Regarding SDA, as one who attends a house church fellowship, I know it's always best to go to the source for information rather than those who oppose the source. For example, I am a young earth creationist and an ID proponent. I've found that evolutionists tend to grossly misinterpret what we believe so if you were to look up the definitions of an IDer on a darwinian evolutionists site, it would be all wrong. So, don't go to them, go to an ID site to find out what IDers believe.
Again – I will respectfully disagree with you – I understand the fallacies associated with Darwinian metaphysics passed off as science but I have gone to the “source” as you insist to many ID sites and I find just as many misconceptions and metaphysical concepts presented as science on those sites as the Darwinians post. I prefer to do independent research using my own noodle and training to evaluate what is science and what is not. I do the same when evaluating Mormonism, SDAism, the Watchtower pretenders, etc. I compare the error they all teach to what is written in the Book.

Why don't you just allow brakelite to tell you what he believes rather than telling him what you think he believes.
Lol – I hardly think brakelite needs my approval to present his/her aberrant SDA doctrine. And I have been discussing this issue with members of his sect for some time now and I feel qualified to interpret what his organization teaches – their error is well defined by their writings and has been defeated by able bodied Christians for well over 100 years. What I present is hardly original.:)

Studyin'2Show

May 9th 2008, 01:53 AM

LH, I'm not sure if you recognize it but you can cut the condescension in your posts with a knife. I am trying really hard to find evidence of any of the fruit of the spirit. :dunno: I do not look to traditions, but to the word of God. You quote people, brakelite quotes people but I quote scripture. I believe scripture clearly shows that early believers DID indeed worship on the Sabbath. But guess what? They also worshiped on the first day, the second, the third and so on. Our fellowship has a Sabbath service on Friday evening, a Lord's Day service on Sunday morning, and a Tuesday Bible study. With all that said, I remember the Sabbath 'day' from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Why in the world would that be an issue for you? BTW, I know this thread got moved to World Religions because the SDA stuff was posted but this really is not just and SDA issue. I, personally, have no problem with believers worshiping on ANY day, but YOU seem to have a problem with ME remembering the Sabbath 'day'. Paul tells me not to let anyone judge me regarding the Sabbath, so I won't. :P God bless you, friend! I will respect you completely and consider you a brother (or sister:hmm:) in Messiah, whether you return that respect or not. ;)

losthorizon

May 9th 2008, 02:29 AM

I do not look to traditions, but to the word of God. You quote people, brakelite quotes people but I quote scripture. I believe scripture clearly shows that early believers DID indeed worship on the Sabbath.

Do you then simply ignore history? You have yet to show one command in the NT where Christians are to keep the Sabbath as God’s commandment – you have yet to show one example where Christians were taught to keep the Sabbath under the law of Christ. There are no such commands or examples. The NT plainly shows that Christians assembled on the Lord’s Day to celebrate the Lord's resurrection and to worship publicly. This example was followed by the early church as recorded in history…
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. ~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

But guess what? They also worshiped on the first day, the second, the third and so on. Our fellowship has a Sabbath service on Friday evening, a Lord's Day service on Sunday morning, and a Tuesday Bible study. With all that said, I remember the Sabbath 'day' from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Why in the world would that be an issue for you?
The only issues I have are with those who insist Christians are bound to the fourth commandment under the NT – we are not.

BTW, I know this thread got moved to World Religions because the SDA stuff was posted but this really is not just and SDA issue. I, personally, have no problem with believers worshiping on ANY day, but YOU seem to have a problem with ME remembering the Sabbath 'day'.
I respectfully disagree – it is not all about you – I oppose any and all who teach Christians that the fourth commandment is part of the law of Christ – it is not.

Paul tells me not to let anyone judge me regarding the Sabbath, so I won't. God bless you, friend! I will respect you completely and consider you a brother (or sister) in Messiah, whether you return that respect or not
As I have said on many occasion on many different threads – if you or anyone else are convinced in you heart that you are to keep the sabbath then you have my respect in your endeavor and I say, godspeed – however I do not respect those who try to place the yoke of bondage on any brother or sister in Christ by teaching non-NT requirements that only were applicable to the Jews. Only God has the authority to bind or loose such requirements and He specifically did not bind any of the Jewish shadows on Christians including keeping the seventh day. God bless.:)

brakelite

May 9th 2008, 08:18 AM

[QUOTE=losthorizon;1632100]

And again I must respectfully disagree with you – while I may cut out the fluff and cordiality (just my style when dealing with the gross error of SDAism) I only present the truth recorded in Holy Writ and historical fact as presented by first-class historians who are recognized by all scholars as experts on the subject at hand. And these scholars all record the absence of Sabbath-keeping among the early church - a point that neither you nor our SDA friend have yet addressed. Why? Is Philip Schaff and every other reputable scholar incorrect when they unanimously agree that the Christians leaders who were taught at the feet of the apostles did not keep the seventh day but they did publically celebrate the Lord’s resurrection on the same day He arose from the dead – Sunday – the Lord’s Day. Do you publically assemble with the saints on that same Lord’s Day? If not – why not?

/QUOTE]
In answer to the above bolded question, yes. They are unanimously wrong. Not an altogether unusual occurrence when talking majority views.
And those 'scholars' you speak of who all record the 'absence of Sabbath keeping in the early church' - either you are very selective in your choice of 'scholar' at best or at worst, dishonest. I have quoted several sources , both secular and religious, none of which were themselves Sabbath keepers, who testify that in their studies of history they have found ample evidence that Sunday was only observed in Alexandria and Rome, until at least the 3rd and 4th centuries.
History also reveals that as the papal church grew in power, so did the observance of Sunday follow suit.

I will cite just two examples. William Thomas Lowndes published "A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath" in 1842.
Quote: ' The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed... by the Christians of the Eastern Church (in the area near Palestine) above 300 years after our Saviour's death.'

This Eastern church he speaks of included the centre of Christianity of that time, Antioch.

Dr August Neander published in 1843 "The History of the Christian Religion and Church"
Quote: 'The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect far from them, and from the early church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday.'

I would suggest that you find historians who first have actually read the New Testament.
Your constant repetitive and false claim that the apostles did not honor the Sabbath stands in stark and vivid contrast to the many texts from the scriptures themselves that I and others have quoted.
And thus far the only two texts you have cited as evidence of Sunday worship is the request of Paul to take up an offering to help famine inflicted believers in Jerusalem, and a Saturday night dinner party in during which Paul made a farewell speech that lasted all night. Not only so, but was likely a simple continuation of the previous Sabbath meeting anyway.
Hardly the stuff true doctrines are founded upon. There must surely be more evidence than this?:hmm:

Naphal

May 9th 2008, 08:50 AM

And thus far the only two texts you have cited as evidence of Sunday worship is the request of Paul to take up an offering to help famine inflicted believers in Jerusalem, and a Saturday night dinner party in during which Paul made a farewell speech that lasted all night. Not only so, but was likely a simple continuation of the previous Sabbath meeting anyway.

What "Sabbath meeting"? There isn't one mentioned yet you insist there was one? Based on what?

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to
depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Nothing, not a word is mentioned of this so called "Sabbath meeting", or of the Sabbath at all. The only thing important enough
to mention is the meal and the preaching of Paul until midnight on Sunday, not Saturday.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Here they met every day. That includes Saturdays and Sundays. There wasn't a certain, commanded day of the week to meet together
in the temple (known as going to church in modern times).

Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his
name.
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Same is seen here.

Acts 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them
returned to Jerusalem.
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day,
and sat down.

Some believe that Paul went to the Synagogue because he "kept the Sabbath" but there is nothing in the texts to suggest anything
like this. Paul merely went to where people were gathered so he could preach Jesus to them.

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the
next sabbath.
Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who,
speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by
Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to
you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Paul also was able to preach to both Gentiles and Jews at the Synagogue.

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to
idolatry.
Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him.

Here we see that Paul would go whereever and whenever to reach people to preach to.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things
concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from
them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

He preached every day. It didn't matter if it was Saturday or Wednesday. All days were the same to Paul. The important thing for
him was to spread the Gospel.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

So here we read "as his manner was". Shall we assume that this means he "kept the Sabbath" ie: didn't work, didn't travel far, didn't bear a burden or kindle a fire? Of course not. His "manner" was to go to the Jew and Gentiles on a Saturday where they were gathered and "reason" (this means to discuss and debate) with them about how Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Shoot, Christians should do that to this day! Every Saturday they should come into temples and synagogues and "reason" with the people there about Jesus and the gospel! That wouldn't mean these Christians "kept the Sabbath" :)

Naphal

May 9th 2008, 08:53 AM

1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

I like this as it could be an origin to passing the collection plate on Sunday in church.

brakelite

May 9th 2008, 11:33 AM

What "Sabbath meeting"? There isn't one mentioned yet you insist there was one? Based on what?

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to
depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Nothing, not a word is mentioned of this so called "Sabbath meeting", or of the Sabbath at all. The only thing important enough
to mention is the meal and the preaching of Paul until midnight on Sunday, not Saturday.
The days were measured from 'even to even'. The dark part of the day always came first. So when the text in this instance says the dark part of the first day of the week, it undoubtedly means Saturday night. Paul was travelling Sunday morning; he preached until dawn, then said his farewells and left. You are right of course, no mention of the Sabbath; I am presuming such as that was the disciples usual custom.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat
with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Here they met every day. That includes Saturdays and Sundays. There wasn't a certain, commanded day of the week to meet together
in the temple (known as going to church in modern times).

Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his
name.
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Same is seen here.
I quite agree with you, that every opportunity is used, both in the synagogue and the temple when in Jerusalem, to meet with the people and preach the gospel. No argument . And yes, if only we all were as committed.
But because that commitment is made plain, that cannot be used as a mitigation against Sabbath keeping. Shall we dare to think that the disciples, who urged that followers of Messiah should 'walk as He walked', would not do the same? Should we dare that they treated the Sabbath as a common working day? Should we be so foolish to think that the disciples of Jesus would so dare to antagonize the most treasured and unique custom of the Jewish faith but not to be hauled before the Sanhedrin for doing so?
Yet not a word of debate in all the scriptures between those Jews who continued to observe the Sabbath and those who didn't bother.

Acts 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them
returned to Jerusalem.
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day,
and sat down.

Some believe that Paul went to the Synagogue because he "kept the Sabbath" but there is nothing in the texts to suggest anything
like this.
Why would we expect there to be?

Acts 24:1 ¶ And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.
2 And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence,
3 We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.
4 Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words.
5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

No mention of breaking Sabbath here

7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.
10 ¶ Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
11 Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.
12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul himself here says that there was no disputing regarding his faith and practice all the time he was in Jerusalem. If he was not keeping the Sabbath, there would have been much dispute. Note also that he believed all things written in the law.:hmm:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.
18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.
19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
20 Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,

Here indeed was their opportunity to charge Paul with Sabbath breaking, but no, nothing.
21 Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

Here was the Jews only argument against Paul. Huh?

22 ¶ And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.
23 And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him.
24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
26 He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.
27 But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix’ room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.
1 ¶ Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
2 Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him,
3 And desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.
4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
5 Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him.
6 And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.
7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Here again Paul's own testimony that he was blameless in all things regarding the laws of the Jews. He therefore kept the Sabbath.
So why should we be reminded that Paul went to the synagogue because he was observing the Sabbath, when by his own testimony and practice, it was self evident?

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the
next sabbath.
Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who,
speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
The next Sabbath came almost the whole city. Not the next day, nor the day after that, but the next Sabbath, came Jew and Gentile.

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by
Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to
you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Paul also was able to preach to both Gentiles and Jews at the Synagogue.
Yes but note that it was after the Jews left that the Gentiles asked Paul if they could here him again. And they specifically asked that it be the next Sabbath. By the time the Sabbath came around, word had got out and everyone showed up just to hear Paul. The Jews were envious of his popularity and tried to stir up strife with him. But they had nothing with which to accuse him. If he was working on the Sabbath mending tents etc the Jews would have had their spies to testify of that. Paul kept the Sabbath.

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to
idolatry.
Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him.

Here we see that Paul would go whereever and whenever to reach people to preach to.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things
concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from
them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

He preached every day. It didn't matter if it was Saturday or Wednesday. All days were the same to Paul. The important thing for
him was to spread the Gospel.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

So here we read "as his manner was". Shall we assume that this means he "kept the Sabbath" ie: didn't work, didn't travel far, didn't bear a burden or kindle a fire? Of course not. His "manner" was to go to the Jew and Gentiles on a Saturday where they were gathered and "reason" (this means to discuss and debate) with them about how Jesus was the promised Messiah.
And the Jews hated him Paul was turning the Jewish world upside down. He was a Pharisee. He was a trusted member of the Jewish council, and he had done an about face and proclaiming that the man they crucified was both Lord and Christ. Oh, they hated him for that. He exposed their duplicity in Jesus' murder, he exposed their hypocricy in their hearts, they wanted him dead. And they would have had spies everywhere watching his every move. But not once could they find anything with which to charge him. Not even Sabbath breaking.

[/QUOTE]

Studyin'2Show

May 9th 2008, 12:17 PM

Do you then simply ignore history? You have yet to show one command in the NT where Christians are to keep the Sabbath as God’s commandment – you have yet to show one example where Christians were taught to keep the Sabbath under the law of Christ. There are no such commands or examples. LH, the religious leaders both before and after Yeshua's three year ministry did not ignore history either. Yet, Yeshua rebuked them for putting their 'history/tradition' above what the word of God says. The word is the final authority in all things!

As for the scriptures you say have not been presented, they have been. Scripture after scripture showing that both Jews and Greeks in Messiah still met at the Temple and the synagogues on the Sabbath. You dismiss them with your interpretation. It is quite clear that our interpretation on some things are like night and day. So what now? Do we continue to go around and around on this doctrinal merry-go-round, or do we agree to disagree and move on? :hmm: I mean, come on, we both have accepted Yeshua as Lord and Savior. I follow Him as I believe you'd say you do. And I love God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength as I believe you do. I haven't found ANYONE (including my hubby :D) that I agree with all the time. You've shared why you believe what you believe concerning Sunday and the Sabbath, I've done the same. That's the point of these discussion. At least, for me it is.

God Bless! :)

losthorizon

May 9th 2008, 10:44 PM

LH, the religious leaders both before and after Yeshua's three year ministry did not ignore history either. Yet, Yeshua rebuked them for putting their 'history/tradition' above what the word of God says. The word is the final authority in all things!

Studyin – what you continue to misunderstand is the history we read about in the works of Schaff and all other historian/scholars is in complete agreement with how the NT church conducted her public worship – it was on the first day of the week not on the sabbath day. Their work does not contradict “the final authority” of God’s revealed word. This appears to be an intractable obstacle to your notion the early church was a sabbath-keeping church – it was not - and you have yet to explain this contradiction you teach to your bothers and sister in Christ with what the Bible teaches – logic dictates that both views cannot be true and both the Bible and history are not on your side in this important matter. :)
Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

1 Corinthians 16:2, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Brother Mark

May 9th 2008, 11:16 PM

Studyin – what you continue to misunderstand is the history we read about in the works of Schaff and all other historian/scholars is in complete agreement with how the NT church conducted her public worship – it was on the first day of the week not on the sabbath day. Their work does not contradict “the final authority” of God’s revealed word. This appears to be an intractable obstacle to your notion the early church was a sabbath-keeping church – it was not - and you have yet to explain this contradiction you teach to your bothers and sister in Christ with what the Bible teaches – logic dictates that both views cannot be true and both the Bible and history are not on your side in this important matter. :)
Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

1 Corinthians 16:2, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

How many scriptures does it take to show that the early church met both on the Sabbath and the first day (and the second day if you look hard enough)? Scripture is pretty clear that many met on the Sabbath regularly. Paul certainly found himself worshiping on the Sabbath day.

losthorizon

May 9th 2008, 11:26 PM

...In answer to the above bolded question, yes. They are unanimously wrong...

Brakelite – just a heads up – statement like the one you make above reveal an ignorance that borders on comedy and actually hurts your weak position. As for the out of context quote from Lowndes – do you have the in-context passage that can be reviewed or did you just pick it up on one of your SDA sites that notoriously quote out of context?

I will cite just two examples. William Thomas Lowndes published "A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath" in 1842.
Are you suggesting Lowndes was a Sabbath-keeper or does history record that he worshipped on the Lord’s Day as did the early church? The truth is your quote is a moot quote – that there were apostate deviations from the Christian church 300 years after the Lord’s crucifixion is hardly a new revelation and the idea that some of those sects kept the Sabbath is an historical fact. This being true, you have not refuted nor impeached the credentials of Schaff and the other first-rate scholars who correctly record the early church following in the footsteps of the apostolic church and celebrating the Lord’s resurrection on the same day of the week He arose from the dead – Sunday. You will need to go back to square one and search you SDA sites more thoroughly – who knows maybe you will finally hit the jackpot someday – I won’t hold my breath however. :)
"We assemble in common on Sunday [the Lord's day], because this is the first day, on which God created the world and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples." ~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 140)

brakelite

May 9th 2008, 11:26 PM

Studyin – what you continue to misunderstand is the history we read about in the works of Schaff and all other historian/scholars????? is in complete agreement with how the NT church conducted her public worship – it was on the first day of the week not on the sabbath day. Their work does not contradict “the final authority” of God’s revealed word. This appears to be an intractable obstacle to your notion the early church was a sabbath-keeping church – it was not - and you have yet to explain this contradiction you teach to your bothers and sister in Christ with what the Bible teaches – logic dictates that both views cannot be true and both the Bible and history are not on your side in this important matter.

"There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruption's of Christianity, which are embodied in the Roman system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural notions and practices planted those germs of corruption, they anticipated or even imagined they would ever grow into such a vast and hideous system of superstition and error as is that of popery."--John Dowling, "History of Romanism," 13th Edition, p. 65.

"It would be an error to attribute ['the sanctification of Sunday'] to a definite decision of the Apostles. There is no such decision mentioned in the Apostolic documents [that is, the New Testament] ."--Antoine Villien, "A History of the Commandments of the Church," 1915, p. 23.

"It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day."--McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature," Vol. 9, p. 196.

"Rites and ceremonies, of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions. [Church] officers for whom the primitive disciples could have found no place, and titles which to them would have been altogether unintelligible, began to challenge attention, and to be named apostolic."--William B. Killen, "The Ancient Church," p. xvi.

"Until well into the second century [a hundred years after Christ] we do not find the slightest indication in our sources that Christians marked Sunday by any kind of abstention from work."--W. Rordorf "Sunday," p. 157.

"Modern Christians who talk of keeping Sunday as a 'holy' day, as in the still extant 'Blue Laws,' of colonial America, should know that as a 'holy' day of rest and cessation from labor and amusements Sunday was unknown to Jesus . . . It formed no tenet [teaching] of the primitive Church and became 'sacred' only in the course of time. Outside the Church its observance was legalized for the Roman Empire through a series of decrees starting with the famous one of Constantine in 321, an edict due to his political and social ideas."--W, W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 257.

"The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, [the Roman] temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday . . . The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands . . . Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon."--William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in "The Catholic World," 58, March, 1894.

"Remains of the struggle [between the religion of Christianity and the religion of Mithraism] are found in two institutions adopted from its rival by Christianity in the fourth century, the two Mithraic sacred days: December 25, 'dies natalis solis' [birthday of the sun], as the birthday of Jesus,--and Sunday, 'the venerable day of the Sun,' as Constantine called it in his edict of 321."--Walter Woodburn Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," p. 60.

" 'Babylon, the mother of harlots,' derived much of her teaching from pagan Rome and thence from Babylon. Sun worship--that led her to Sundaykeeping,--was one of those choice bits of paganism that sprang originally from the heathen lore of ancient Babylon: 'The solar theology of the 'Chaldaeans' had a decisive effect upon the final development of Semitic paganism . . (It led to their] seeing the sun the directing power of the cosmic system. All the Baals were thence forward turned into suns; the sun itself being the mover of the other stars--like it eternal and "unconquerable.' . . . Such was the final form reached by the religion of the pagan Semites, and, following them, by that of the Romans . . . when they raised 'Sol Invictus' [the Invincible Sun] to the rank of supreme divinity in the Empire."--Franz V.M. Cumont, "The Frontier Provinces of the East," in "The Cambridge Ancient History," Vol. 11, pp. 643, 646-647.

"With [Constantine's father] Constantius Cholorus (A.D. 305) there ascended the throne [of the Roman Empire] a solar dynasty which . . . professed to have 'Sol Invictus' as its special protector and ancestor. Even the Christian emperors, Constantine and Constantius, did not altogether forget the pretensions which they could derive from so illustrious a descent."--Franz F.V.M. Cumont, "Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Roman," p. 55.

"When Christianity conquered Rome, the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and the vestments of the 'pontifex maximus,' the worship of the 'Great Mother' goddess and a multitude of comforting divinities, . . . the joy or solemnity of old festivals, and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like material blood into the new religion,--and captive Rome conquered her conqueror. The reins and skills of government were handed down by a dying empire to a virile papacy."--Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ," p. 672.

"The power of the Caesars lived again in the universal dominion of the popes."--H.G. Guiness, "Romanism and the Reformation."

"From simple beginnings, the church developed a distinct priesthood and an elaborate service. In this way, Christianity and the higher forms of paganism tended to come nearer and nearer to each other as time went on. In one sense, it is true, they met like armies in mortal conflict, but at the same time they tended to merge into one another like streams which had been following converging courses."--J.H. Robinson, "Introduction to the History of Western Europe," p. 31.

"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truth. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition [the sayings of popes and councils] is to us more clear and safe."--Di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 33.

"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."--"Chamber's Encyclopedia," article, "Sabbath."

Here is the first Sunday Law in history, a legal enactment by Constantine 1 (reigned 306-331): "On the Venerable Day of the Sun ["venerabili die Solis"--the sacred day of the Sun] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost--Given the 7th day of March, [A.D. 321], Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time."--The First Sunday Law of Constantine 1, in "Codex Justinianus," lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Phillip Schaff "History of the Christian Church," Vol. 3, p. 380.

"This [Constantine's Sunday decree of March, 321] is the 'parent' Sunday law making it a day of rest and release from labor. For from that time to the present there have been decrees about the observance of Sunday which have profoundly influenced European and American society. When the Church became a part of State under the Christian emperors, Sunday observance was enforced by civil statutes, and later when the Empire was past, the Church, in the hands of the papacy, enforced it by ecclesiastical and also by civil enactments."--Walter W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 261.

"Constantine's decree marked the beginning of a long, though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."-- Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," 1943, p. 29.

"Constantine labored at this time untiringly to unite the worshipers of the old and the new into one religion. All his laws and contrivances are aimed at promoting this amalgamation of religions. He would by all lawful and peaceable means melt together a purified heathenism and a moderated Christianity . . . Of all his blending and melting together of Christianity and heathenism, none is more easy to see through than this making of his Sunday law: The Christians worshiped their Christ, the heathen their Sun-god . . . [so they should now be combined."--H.G. Heggtveit, "illustreret Kirkehistorie," 1895, p. 202.

"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration [cursing] of the Jews."--Pope Sylvester, quoted by S.R.E. Humbert, "Adversus Graecorum Calumnias," in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 143. [Sylvester (A.D. 314-337) was the pope at the time Constantine 1 was Emperor.]

"All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the [Bible] Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord's day, as being more authoritative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."--Bishop Eusebius, quoted in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 23, 1169-1172. [Eusebius of Caesarea was a high-ranking Catholic leader during Constantine's lifetime.]

As we have already noted, excepting for the Roman and Alexandrian Christians, the majority of Christians were observing the seventh-day Sabbath at least as late as the middle of the fifth century [A.D. 450]. The Roman and Alexandrian Christians were among those converted from heathenism. They began observing Sunday as a merry religious festival in honor of the Lord's resurrection, about the latter half of the second century A.D. However, they did not try to teach that the Lord or His apostles commanded it. In fact, no ecclesiastical writer before Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century even suggested that either Christ or His apostles instituted the observance of the first day of the week.

"These Gentile Christians of Rome and Alexandria began calling the first day of the week 'the Lord's day.' This was not difficult for the pagans of the Roman Empire who were steeped in sun worship to accept, because they [the pagans] referred to their sun-god as their 'Lord.' "--EM. Chalmers, "How Sunday Came Into the Christian Church," p. 3.

The following statement was made 100 years after Constantine's Sunday Law was passed: "Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."--Socrates Scholasticus, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, chap. 22. [Written shortly after A.D. 439.]

"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."--Hermias Sozomen, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," vii, 19, in "A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," 2nd Series, Vol. 2, p. 390. [Written soon after AD. 415.]

"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued."--Lyman Coleman, "Ancient Christianity Exemplified" chap. 26, sec. 2, p. 527.

"Constantine's [five Sunday Law] decrees marked the beginning of a long though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."--"A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316.

"What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday."--Huttan Webster, "Rest Days," pp. 122-123, 210.

Here is the first Sunday Law decree of a Christian council. It was given about 16 years after Constantine's first Sunday Law of A.D. 321: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [in the original: "sabbato"--shall not be idle on the Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out ['anathema,'--excommunicated] from Christ."--Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 337, Canon 29, quoted in C.J. Hefele, "A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316.

"The keeping of the Sunday rest arose from the custom of the people and the constitution of the [Catholic] Church . . . Tertullian was probably the first to refer to a cessation of affairs on the Sun day; the Council of Laodicea issued the first counciliar legislation for that day; Constantine 1 issued the first civil legislation."--Priest Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," p. 203. [A thesis presented to the Catholic University of America.]

"About 590, Pope Gregory, in a letter to the Roman people, denounced as the prophets of Antichrist those who maintained that work ought not to be done on the seventh day."--James T. Ringgold, "The Law of Sunday," p. 267.

In the centuries that followed, persecution against believers in the Bible Sabbath intensified until very few were left alive. When the Reformation began, the true Sabbath was almost unknown.

"Now the [Catholic] Church . . . instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory . . . We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."--Martin J. Scott, "Things Catholic's Are Asked About," 1927, p. 236.

"Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [of the Sabbath to Sunday] was her act . . . AND THE ACT IS A MARK of her ecclesiastical power."--from the office of Cardinal Gibbons, through Chancellor H.F. Thomas, November 11, 1895.

losthorizon

May 9th 2008, 11:30 PM

How many scriptures does it take to show that the early church met both on the Sabbath and the first day (and the second day if you look hard enough)? Scripture is pretty clear that many met on the Sabbath regularly. Paul certainly found himself worshiping on the Sabbath day.
I think it is without doubt that the Lord’s Day held a significance in the apostolic church that was absent on the sabbath day. Again – both Scripture and history bear this out.

Brother Mark

May 9th 2008, 11:34 PM

I think it is without doubt that the Lord’s Day held a significance in the apostolic church that was absent on the sabbath day. Again – both Scripture and history bear this out.

I am not convinced. It seems to me that Paul's take was that it was OK to esteem one day or OK to see them all the same. He certainly met with other believers many, many, many times on the Sabbath.

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 12:02 AM

I am not convinced. It seems to me that Paul's take was that it was OK to esteem one day or OK to see them all the same. He certainly met with other believers many, many, many times on the Sabbath.
He met with those he wanted to persuade to become Christians where ever they met in public whether it was the Jews in the synagogue or the pagans in Athens on Mars Hill. Such meetings hardly constitute the notion of “sabbath-keeping” as a binding obligation to any Christian – Jew or Greek. Do you not see a special significance assigned the Lord’s Day in the apostolic church and throughout the past 2000 years?

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 12:04 AM

He met with those he wanted to persuade to become Christians where ever they met in public whether it was the Jews in the synagogue or the pagans in Athens on Mars Hill. Such meetings hardly constitute the notion of “sabbath-keeping” as a binding obligation to any Christian – Jew or Greek. Do you not see a special significance assigned the Lord’s Day in the apostolic church and throughout the past 2000 years?

I don't see a special significance at all to Sunday. Did not Paul also meet with believers on the Sabbath? Or was it ALWAYS to persuade others to meet on Sunday?

If one wants to meet on Sunday that's OK. If one wants to meet on Monday for worship, that's fine too.

brakelite

May 10th 2008, 12:08 AM

In the time of the apostles there was no Easter service such as we have today. The early church kept the day of the Biblical Passover (Pascha), but not Easter, which was but another invention of paganism. Now Easter also came in the spring of the year, but it was a pagan fertility festival in honor of Ishtar, also known as Attis and was accompanied by licentious practices. Emperor Claudius made it an official holiday during his reign.

The issue here is the fact that Christians began keeping a pagan holiday sacred to an ancient and well-known goddess, and a licentious one at that. Cumont tells us: "Attis awoke from his sleep of death, and the joy created by his resurrection burst out in wild merrymaking, wanton masquerades, and luxurious banquets. "--Franz Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, pages 56-57, 1907 edition.

Gradually the Christian church identified with this pagan festival of the Resurrection of Spring, by keeping it in honor of the resurrection of Christ. History reveals that it was a deliberate decree of the bishop of Rome that brought Easter into the church.

About the year 154 A.D., Anticetus, bishop of the church at Rome, authorized a Sunday festival to correspond with the Attis fertility festival. This was a combining of Mithra, Attis and Christ and would better appeal to the heathen, he thought. Half-converted theologians in Alexandria spent their time digging up pagan philosophy and recommending it in writing to the Christian churches of the Empire, while half-converted church leaders in Rome used those ideas as levers to gain control over the other local churches by pretending that they had the authority to require obedience to them!

Polycarp who was a close friend of the Apostle John before his death, at the same time mentioned earlier in which he tried to win Anticetus back to the true Sabbath, also tried to dissuade him from keeping the pagan Sunday Easter festival. But he failed in his efforts and returned with a sad report to the brethren in the eastern churches.

In 195 A.D., for the first time in history the Roman church made major news in all the churches of Christendom, Victor, bishop of Rome, tried to force all of the eastern church leaders to keep the annual celebration of Christ's resurrection on Sunday. Of course, the bishops of the other churches protested, insisting that if done at all, the Biblical precedent for this was on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan [Ex 10,12,14, Lev 23:5].

But Victor would not consider this, and had the boldness to write letters "ex-communicating" all leaders and churches that refused to do as he said. He declared all the churches of Asia to be apostates because they would not follow his example in the matter.

Back in those days, some churches were more influential than others, but none were "over" the others. What Victor tried to do in 195 AD. bordered on the fantastic.

This was probably the first time in history that the bishop of Rome attempted to gain control over all the other churches, and commenting on it, Dr. Bower, in his History of the Popes, volume 1, page 18, calls it "The first essay of papal usurpation." In simple language, we would call it, "the first attempt at papal takeover."

A careful study of the historical records reveals that gradually, with the passing of the years, the Roman bishop tended to use his new day, Sunday, as a ploy for political supremacy over the other churches. Victor's decree was the first ecclesiastical Sunday Law of any kind, in history.

The Easter Controversy continued, with the Eastern churches giving it stiff opposition until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., at which time Sunday was declared the official day for Easter observance. Emperor Constantine immediately followed this, the same year, with civil enactments enforcing it among the churches.

It was through the Gnostic Christians of Alexandria that several serious problems entered the church:

1--Spiritizing away Scripture truth through the use of allegories
2--The use of images and image worship in Christian worship
3--The introduction of Greek philosophic speculations into the church
4--The practice of Sun Worship
5--The keeping of Sunday
6--The introduction of Egyptian pagan rituals
7--Anti-Jewish sentiment
8--The founding of the first worldly seminary for the training of ministers (a school, by the way, that continued with great success for centuries).

Only the church at Rome gave full support and backing to the marvelous innovations of Alexandria, and it is a striking fact that all the Christians for the first two centuries after Christ and the Apostles, whose writings have been authenticated beyond question, and who opposed the Sabbath and favored Sunday observance, were men who (1) were sympathetic with Gnosticism, had anti-Jewish prejudice, and (2) came from or who received their training in Alexandria or Rome.

Outstanding among these were the Gnostic Christian philosophers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origin. And with them, Tertullian, who, living west of Alexandria, received his training from a pagan skeptic (instead of gnostic) philosopher, before professing Christianity.

The only other significant and authenticated Christian writers who taught Sunday keeping before 300 A.D. were the bishops of Rome, in their decrees and writings.

Now, unless you have actually read their writings you cannot imagine what kind of thinking went through the minds of these "Christian philosophy" men of Alexandria. It is nearly unbelievable--the mystical dreamy applications they put on Scripture and on everything else. And yet these are the men who began the Sunday-keeping idea in the Christian church, and then passed it onto the politically oriented, but liberal, minds of the leaders at Rome.

As an example, here are two of Clement of Alexandria's most important statements about Sunday-keeping. It should be here mentioned that Clement was head teacher at the Alexandrian theological school for several years (190-215 A.D.), and has the distinction of being the first Christian in recorded history to apply the term "Lord's day" to the first day of the week. Here are two of his most important passages on the importance of Sunday-keeping:

"And the fourth word [in the Ten Commandments] is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that He gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life . . . The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest--abstraction from ills--preparing for the primal day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed . . . The eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days . . . The Pythagoreans, as I think, reckon six the perfect number . . . As marriage generates from male and female, so six is generated from the odd number three, which is called the masculine number, and the even number two which is considered feminine. For twice three is six."--Clement, Miscellanies, book 6, chapter 16.

Such is Clement's Scriptureless reasoning on the Sabbath question. And what is his source of authority for the use of "Lord's day" to be applied to the first day of the week? As did several Sunday-keeping "Christian" philosophers of the Alexandrian school, Clement not only spiritualized away Scripture, but he also spiritualized out of Plato's Republic, extracts he could use for "new" Christian teachings! [Plato was an earlier heathen Greek writer who wrote a book called 'The Republic'] Here is the thinking that introduced Sunday as "the Lord's day" into the Christian Church:

"And the Lord's day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words, 'And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth day they are to set out and arrive in four days."--Clement, Miscellanies, book 5, chapter 14. [Col 2:6-8,1 Tim 6:20]

Clement says he got the idea from Plato! Because of his very early statements about Sunday-keeping, Clement was considered very important later on to the leaders at Rome, so he was eventually canonized--and declared to be a saint!

So much for Clement--the man who invented the idea that the "Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10) means Sunday. He was one of several teachers at the Alexandria theology school who wrote--and practiced--praying toward the sun during worship whenever possible. He tells us that he got the idea from the pagan Mithraites. [Ezek 8:16-17].

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 12:28 AM

In the time of the apostles...

The apostles met for worship on Sunday too. Nothing wrong with meeting on Sunday as we have their example.

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 12:45 AM

I don't see a special significance at all to Sunday.
What do you think Schaff referred to below regarding the "celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ"? Is that DAY not special to the Lord's church? Why did those early Christians keep "the Lord’s Day holy"?
The celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lord’s Day of the Lord”… Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the church of Rome, A.D., 170: "To-day we kept the Lord’s Day holy, in which we read your letter”…

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 12:49 AM

What do you think Schaff referred to below regarding the "celebration of the Lord’s Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ"? Is that DAY not special to the Lord's church? Why did those early Christians keep "the Lord’s Day holy"?

I don't know why the early brothers did what they did on much at all. I just know what Paul did and said in scripture. Some days are important to some. Some folks keep all days the same. Want to worship on Tuesday? I would encourage that! Worship any day of the week, just as long as you worship.

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 01:55 AM

I don't know why the early brothers did what they did on much at all. I just know what Paul did and said in scripture. Some days are important to some. Some folks keep all days the same. Want to worship on Tuesday? I would encourage that! Worship any day of the week, just as long as you worship.
Okay, Mark – if it is your desire to not see the significance of the Lord’s Day celebration in the NT church then we can move on.

Naphal

May 10th 2008, 02:00 AM

The days were measured from 'even to even'. The dark part of the day always came first. So when the text in this instance says the dark part of the first day of the week, it undoubtedly means Saturday night. Paul was travelling Sunday morning; he preached until dawn, then said his farewells and left.

None of that is in contention. It still means he spent a major portion of Sunday gathered together with the others, eating and preaching.

You are right of course, no mention of the Sabbath; I am presuming such as that was the disciples usual custom.

And that's the whole key. There is no mention of the Sabbath or that anything special happened then. The entire scriptural focus is what occurred on Sunday.

But because that commitment is made plain, that cannot be used as a mitigation against Sabbath keeping. Shall we dare to think that the disciples, who urged that followers of Messiah should 'walk as He walked', would not do the same?

We should but he did not keep the Sabbath according to the letter of the Sabbath laws and I mean not the letter from God nor the letter of the added rules. He kept it in a new way, a better way. This is why Christians do it in like fashion.

Should we dare that they treated the Sabbath as a common working day?

They absolutely did and I would further say that they considered it the day to do the most work because the need was so great and the people who needed to be preached to and taught were gathered together on Saturdays. Again, that's why Paul and others went to temples on that day.

Should we be so foolish to think that the disciples of Jesus would so dare to antagonize the most treasured and unique custom of the Jewish faith but not to be hauled before the Sanhedrin for doing so?

They angered the religious leaders by their acts on the Sabbath.

Yet not a word of debate in all the scriptures between those Jews who continued to observe the Sabbath and those who didn't bother.

That's not true. The Jews hated that Paul was teaching against the law and customs which includes the Sabbath.

Acts 16:20 And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,
Acts 16:21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Why would we expect there to be?

I don't really. The Sabbath was being broken by so many. Everyone knew how to skirt the Sabbath rules and bend and break them by this time. Christ pointed out the hypocrisy. Paul got more flack over other issues but he is clear in his letters that the Sabbath doesn't have to be esteemed above any other day. This means he also lived in this way.

Note also that he believed all things written in the law.:hmm:

All Christians believe in all th9ings written in the law, but we also know to be dead to the law and that the old law was for a former time. I also believe in Genesis but I also know it occurred long ago.

Here again Paul's own testimony that he was blameless in all things regarding the laws of the Jews. He therefore kept the Sabbath.

That doesn't mean he kept it like they did. He taught and believed in the new ways of the new covenant. He taught that people did not have to be circumcised physically because he know the true circumcision. He also knew the true Sabbath. That makes him blameless according to the law as are all Christians.

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 02:04 AM

Okay, Mark – if it is your desire to not see the significance of the Lord’s Day celebration in the NT church then we can move on.

My desire is to stick with scripture when developing doctrine. Traditions of men sometimes don't line up with scripture. If your doctrine of sunday significance is valid, scripture is all you need. If history is necessary, then you are teaching doctrines of men.

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 02:07 AM

My desire is to stick with scripture when developing doctrine. Traditions of men sometimes don't line up with scripture. If your doctrine of sunday significance is valid, scripture is all you need. If history is necessary, then you are teaching doctrines of men.
I base the significance of the Lord’s day celebration on the Bible and it agrees with what I read in history – it not a hard concept.

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 02:14 AM

I base the significance of the Lord’s day celebration on the Bible and it agrees with what I read in history – it not a hard concept.

Hmmm. So now who's putting law on others? I think it interesting that you fight so hard against the Sabbath only to establish a new day to keep holy.

Naphal

May 10th 2008, 02:19 AM

Hmmm. So now who's putting law on others? I think it interesting that you fight so hard against the Sabbath only to establish a new day to keep holy.

I agree. Sunday isn't commanded anymore than Saturday is. If we try to elevate Sundays then we make the same mistake the Saturday people make.

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 02:36 AM

Hmmm. So now who's putting law on others? I think it interesting that you fight so hard against the Sabbath only to establish a new day to keep holy.
I think you are unfairly accusing me my friend – I have never “put law on others” as you suggest. I never said Sunday must be “kept holy” or one is committing sin as many of our Sabbatarian friends say about those who do not “keep” the sabbath. I simply point out the reality of the NT – the Lord’s Day has significance in the NT that it never had under the OT.

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 05:14 PM

I think you are unfairly accusing me my friend – I have never “put law on others” as you suggest. I never said Sunday must be “kept holy” or one is committing sin as many of our Sabbatarian friends say about those who do not “keep” the sabbath. I simply point out the reality of the NT – the Lord’s Day has significance in the NT that it never had under the OT.So, if you are 'unholy' on Sunday it is not sin? :hmm:

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 06:30 PM

So, if you are 'unholy' on Sunday it is not sin? :hmm:
un•ho•ly adj. un•ho•li•er, un•ho•li•est
1. Wicked; immoral.
2. Not hallowed or consecrated.It would be sin to be unholy any day. Am I a sinner because I do not “keep” the sabbath (the 4th commandment) as the Jews were commanded to “keep” it? Were Christians ever "commanded" to "keep" that day?:)

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 06:49 PM

un•ho•ly adj. un•ho•li•er, un•ho•li•est
1. Wicked; immoral.
2. Not hallowed or consecrated.It would be sin to be unholy any day. Am I a sinner because I do not “keep” the sabbath (the 4th commandment) as the Jews were commanded to “keep” it? Were Christians ever "commanded" to "keep" that day?:)Just making the obvious clear with relation to the statement below. I do not keep the Sabbath 'day' holy because it is the Sabbath. We should keep every day holy. The Sabbath, however, I remember. ;)

Blessings to you! :)

I never said Sunday must be “kept holy” or one is committing sin

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 07:34 PM

Just making the obvious clear with relation to the statement below. I do not keep the Sabbath 'day' holy because it is the Sabbath. We should keep every day holy. The Sabbath, however, I remember. ;)

Blessings to you! :)
But is the 4th commandment required for God’s people today as it was required under the Law of Moses – ie – under the Mosaic Law those Jews who refused to obey the 4th commandment were to be “cut off” from God’s people. Is it sin to not obey the 4th commandment today? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do fine as an answer. Let’s make the obvious clear. ;)

God bless. :)

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 08:35 PM

But is the 4th commandment required for God’s people today as it was required under the Law of Moses – ie – under the Mosaic Law those Jews who refused to obey the 4th commandment were to be “cut off” from God’s people. Is it sin to not obey the 4th commandment today? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do fine as an answer. Let’s make the obvious clear. ;)

God bless. :)Already asked and already answered. ;) But you want me to answer again? Okay, yes! Being disobedient to God's/Messiah's commands is sin. Praise God we have the blood of Yeshua to cleanse us from all sin.

I happen to believe that the Law of Christ IS the Law of God fleshed out as the Father always intended. You don't. I would not impose my interpretation of scripture on you as I hope you would not want to impose yours on me. Either way, God is full of mercy and grace; always has been always will be.

God Bless! :)

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 08:53 PM

Already asked and already answered. ;) But you want me to answer again? Okay, yes! Being disobedient to God's/Messiah's commands is sin. Praise God we have the blood of Yeshua to cleanse us from all sin.

Thank you, just wanted to make the obvious clear. Does God forgive deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin? In your theology if I do not keep the 4th commandment am I committing deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin?

Brother Mark

May 10th 2008, 08:59 PM

Thank you, just wanted to make the obvious clear. Does God forgive deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin? In your theology if I do not keep the 4th commandment am I committing deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin?

I am going to step back in on this one. She has made it clear from the beginning that she doesn't consider those with different interpretations as being clearly rebellious. That is the explanation she tried to offer earlier that was often rejected. A child that misunderstands the parents command may not be obedient, but that doesn't mean that child is in rebellion deliberately.

Let's not turn this into an argument. We grow in truth and grace. Things I was able to do years ago, I did in ignorance and I am no longer able to do. Was I in rebellion then? No. So was it willful, continuous, unrepentant sin? Absolutely not.

That is why Paul warned us so hard about whatever is not of faith is sin.

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 09:01 PM

Thank you, just wanted to make the obvious clear. Does God forgive deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin? In your theology if I do not keep the 4th commandment am I committing deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin?Do you believe that the 4th commandment is a part of the Law of Christ and are thusly deliberately, willfully, continuously, rebelling against His Law? If so, then you are. However, you have said that you honestly don't believe it is. Even if I am right (which I believe I am) how could that be considered deliberate sin on your part? :hmm:

losthorizon

May 10th 2008, 09:24 PM

Do you believe that the 4th commandment is a part of the Law of Christ and are thusly deliberately, willfully, continuously, rebelling against His Law? If so, then you are. However, you have said that you honestly don't believe it is. Even if I am right (which I believe I am) how could that be considered deliberate sin on your part? :hmm:
John writes that “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17). If the 4th commandment is binding on Christians today under the Law of Christ (and it is not) and I willfully refuse to obey that command from God then my action is unrighteousness before Him and therefore it would be deliberate, willful, continuous, rebelling against His Law and I would stand condemned and would be “cut off” from His grace.

But the 4th commandment was never given to any Gentile or even one Christian per the Book. It is not part of the Law of Christ – the other 9 commandments are part of His law but the 4th commandment is never reiterated in the NT and is thus not binding on Christians. If I do not keep the 4th commandment I have committed no sin – it was never commanded for me to “keep”. Those who teach that we must keep the seventh day do so outside the authority of God and they are in error and all unrighteousness is sin.

slightlypuzzled

May 10th 2008, 09:41 PM

Let's please remember we all have a responsibility to be God imitators as we interact with eact other. Showing love, patience and gentleness is not an option; it is a command for us today...

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 10:42 PM

John writes that “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17). If the 4th commandment is binding on Christians today under the Law of Christ (and it is not) and I willfully refuse to obey that command from God then my action is unrighteousness before Him and therefore it would be deliberate, willful, continuous, rebelling against His Law and I would stand condemned and would be “cut off” from His grace.

But the 4th commandment was never given to any Gentile or even one Christian per the Book. It is not part of the Law of Christ – the other 9 commandments are part of His law but the 4th commandment is never reiterated in the NT and is thus not binding on Christians. If I do not keep the 4th commandment I have committed no sin – it was never commanded for me to “keep”. Those who teach that we must keep the seventh day do so outside the authority of God and they are in error and all unrighteousness is sin.LH, I've answered your question...again. I've given my position...again. I'm not really sure what else to say. :dunno: I think this thread may have run its course. ;)

God Bless! :)

Naphal

May 10th 2008, 10:46 PM

Sunday...where did it really come from?

God. Sunday came from God :)

Studyin'2Show

May 10th 2008, 10:48 PM

God. Sunday came from God :):P So the thread is officially done! :rofl:

Naphal

May 10th 2008, 10:50 PM

Yep...its a wonder it even went beyond one page huh? :)

losthorizon

May 11th 2008, 12:48 AM

LH, I've answered your question...again. I've given my position...again. I'm not really sure what else to say. :dunno: I think this thread may have run its course. ;)